UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: pathfinder73 on June 09, 2014, 12:39:05 AM
-
They should have taken the dogs around the other search areas marked which doesn't look like it's going to happen which is very disappointing. Madeleine was hidden in PDL on that night.
-
They should have taken the dogs around the other search areas marked which doesn't look like it's going to happen which is very disappointing. Madeleine was hidden in PDL on that night.
If she was hidden in PDL then the person was local and had to be in PDL the next day so he doesn't cause suspicion.
The police know very well from the phone data who exactly was in proximity of Madeleine's room that night!
This is how they identified the suspects IMO.
The areas they search is probably also coming from the phone data.. they checked how and where the person moved that night.
I think PDL has (at least) two phone masts, this is what I found out when searched for it. They can figure out who moved between these masts at these exact times.
-
If she was hidden in PDL then the person was local and had to be in PDL the next day so he doesn't cause suspicion.
The police know very well from the phone data who exactly was in proximity of Madeleine's room that night!
This is how they identified the suspects IMO.
The areas they search is probably also coming from the phone data.. they checked how and where the person moved that night.
I think PDL has (at least) two phone masts, this is what I found out when searched for it. They can figure out who moved between these masts at these exact times.
Of course he was local with no transport as he was running for his life down Rua 25 de Abril not up. That wasteland and outside perimeter bushes should be checked and around the church with the dogs.
-
If she was hidden in PDL then the person was local and had to be in PDL the next day so he doesn't cause suspicion.
Or it was a holidaymaker with no car.
Or just a criminal that thought travelling with a dead girl in tow might be too risky.
Or a petty criminal with no car.
Or a paedophile, who did not have the interest in a dead body.
Or a panicky kidnapper, who killed Maddie accidentally and then dumped in the first convenient spot.
Or...
There are many possibilities not requiring the perp to be local. Not that I consider them probable...
-
Of course he was local with no transport as he was running for his life down Rua 25 de Abril not up. That wasteland and outside perimeter bushes should be checked and around the church with the dogs.
Not according to the Portuguese-GNR dogs. According to them, the person had a car and it was parked across the road of the second reception.
-
Not according to the Portuguese-GNR dogs. According to them, the person had a car and it was parked across the road of the second reception.
Yes the best place to put a getaway car opposite to where they all were 8-)(--) Are you for real? Madeleine went through that car park every day to go to the crèche/kids club.
-
Madeleine went through that car park every day to go to the crèche.
This is assumption. There is no statement clearly stating this.. A policeman should not assume this. A proper policeman would check whose car was parked there that night and check out this person inside out..
-
This is assumption. There is no statement clearly stating this.. A policeman should not assume this. A proper policeman would check whose car was parked there that night and check out this person inside out..
Read the McCanns statements. They used a short cut to get there. The short cut goes through G6 car park.
-
This is assumption. There is no statement clearly stating this.. A policeman should not assume this. A proper policeman would check whose car was parked there that night and check out this person inside out..
Gerry, 10th May:
From memory, on Tuesday, 1 May 2007, being shown by RUSSELL, he went to pick up MADELEINE at creche using a short-cut that began at the car park opposite the secondary reception and went between the buildings, which he used to fetch and carry his daughter.
-
Gerry, 10th May:
From memory, on Tuesday, 1 May 2007, being shown by RUSSELL, he went to pick up MADELEINE at creche using a short-cut that began at the car park opposite the secondary reception and went between the buildings, which he used to fetch and carry his daughter.
This is the way back from the creche. Report not clear and can be interpreted in different ways.
The dogs went the opposite route.. from the apartment to the car park.
-
Not according to the Portuguese-GNR dogs. According to them, the person had a car and it was parked across the road of the second reception.
Just completely guessing maybe this is part of what the independent PJ are looking at?
-
Just completely guessing maybe this is part of what the independent PJ are looking at?
I think both teams now work using the method of elimination. Something similar is used in medicine when diagnosing the patients.
I was only curious if the tractorman had car? Maybe he was used only for transport?
Was Madeleine transported by car to the place near the Smiths sighting? If yes why? Was he living near by? Or for boat reasons? If boat why boat? If no boat then where? If wasteland why wasteland? Why this specific place?
If they combine these questions with the phone masts results I think they can get answers.
-
This is the way back from the creche. Report not clear and can be interpreted in different ways.
The dogs went the opposite route.. from the apartment to the car park.
You said the car park opposite the second reception. That is what Gerry said in his statement. Thanks to Martina for digging it out. Madeleine went though there every day so it's not surprising that the dogs found her scent. What do you mean the dogs went opposite route - Madeleine went the same route there and back. A dog also crossed over from G6 car park and found her scent at the entrance where Madeleine came from at 5:35 on the day she disappeared. She followed the path round to the north key door according to Kate. So her scent would have been on the path which the dogs followed to the car park.
-
You said the car park opposite the second reception. That is what Gerry said in his statement. Thanks to Martina for digging it out. Madeleine went though there every day so it's not surprising that the dogs found her scent. What do you mean the dogs went opposite route - Madeleine went the same route there and back. A dog also crossed over from G6 car park and found her scent at the entrance where Madeleine came from at 5:35 on the day she disappeared. She followed the path round to the north key door according to Kate. So her scent would have been on the path which the dogs followed to the car park.
Gerry never stated that Madeleine went to creche every day exactly that route and that she went to creche that day using this route.
-
They left via the front door (north side) every day which meant the apartment was secure since the rear patio doors were locked from within. Out through the north car park possibly meeting another of the tapas group and child on the way. Then south down past the apartment and across the road opposite mini reception. No mystery!
The GNR dogs were spot on imo.
-
They left via the front door (north side) every day which meant the apartment was secure since the rear patio doors were locked from within. Out through the north car park possibly meeting another of the tapas group and child on the way. Then south down past the apartment and across the road opposite mini reception. No mystery!
The GNR dogs were spot on imo.
I've read somewhere on the tracking dogs websites that this what GNR dogs presented would be the freshest route that Madeleine has passed. In other words, her last route.
Why the dogs did not go to the creche but all 4 stopped at the same place next to the lamp and in the parking area.
IMO the police should at least check who usually parked there.
-
I've read somewhere on the tracking dogs websites that this what GNR dogs presented would be the freshest route that Madeleine has passed. In other words, her last route.
Why the dogs did not go to the creche but all 4 stopped at the same place next to the lamp and in the parking area.
IMO the police should at least check who usually parked there.
Her last route was from was the tapas bar to 5A not the crèche. You really have no idea if you think a getaway car would be parked opposite the place where they all were. Get Real!
-
Her last route was from was the tapas bar to 5A not the crèche. You really have no idea if you think a getaway car would be parked opposite the place where they all were. Get Real!
Exactly, as Gerry states (10th May)
They stayed in that place, talking, until 16H45 at which time the twins went to the meal area. At 17h00, as usual, MADELEINE arrived accompanied by the teachers and the other children. After her arrival, MADELEINE ate, [the meal] having ended at 17H30.
------ After 17H30 they went to the apartment, the deponent having entered by the main door, which he did not lock while he was inside the residence. KATE and the children entered by the rear door, after this had been opened from the inside by the deponent.
-
Exactly, as Gerry states (10th May)
They stayed in that place, talking, until 16H45 at which time the twins went to the meal area. At 17h00, as usual, MADELEINE arrived accompanied by the teachers and the other children. After her arrival, MADELEINE ate, [the meal] having ended at 17H30.
------ After 17H30 they went to the apartment, the deponent having entered by the main door, which he did not lock while he was inside the residence. KATE and the children entered by the rear door, after this had been opened from the inside by the deponent.
This is not a route from the apartment.
These dogs are used at the last known place and to establish where the person went from that place. This is their main purpose.
-
Her last route was from was the tapas bar to 5A not the crèche. You really have no idea if you think a getaway car would be parked opposite the place where they all were. Get Real!
Not necessarily. We are learning now that some of the ex OC workers are new possible suspects and this was announced by PJ.
If the person worked for OC then his-her car parked there would not be for the purpose of escape. It would be parked there because he-she usually parks there.
-
This is not a route from the apartment.
These dogs are used at the last known place and to establish where the person went from that place. This is their main purpose.
Would the dogs be able to detect a scent if she was carried from the apartment ?
Would this air scent be stronger than an earlier one on the ground ?
-
This is not a route from the apartment.
These dogs are used at the last known place and to establish where the person went from that place. This is their main purpose.
That's the last and the freshest route of Maddie. She didn't walk out of the creche straight to the apartment, she went first to the Tapas, for her high tea. And, from the Tapas, according to Gerry, she went to the apartment. And though the dogs have very keen sense of smell, they can't tell the difference between the route to and the route from, if the source of smell is not around anymore (that means at the end of the route from the given place).
-
Would the dogs be able to detect a scent if she was carried from the apartment ?
Would this air scent be stronger than an earlier one on the ground ?
That is a 65 000 dollars question. I've asked this everywhere in the past 7 years and nobody ever was able to answer it.
I've spoken to two dog handlers separately and one said the dogs would still follow her scent as even if carried she'd leave her particles on the ground. The other said they possibly wouldn't. So, it is hard to tell.
-
When someone is picked up and removed they will leave their scent particles if they are struggling.
If they are asleep little or no particles will shed.
All it takes is one break in the trail for the dogs to lose the scent which is imo wat happened.
-
This topic is a spin-off from the latest news thread.
-
The dogs can only respond in relation to the item they are given to scent from.
The search & rescue dogs were given an Aztec towel, which may or may not have had Madeleine's scent on it, so the paths they followed may have belonged to any one of a number of individuals who had access to the towel.
-
The dogs can only respond in relation to the item they are given to scent from.
The search & rescue dogs were given an Aztec towel, which may or may not have had Madeleine's scent on it, so the paths they followed may have belonged to any one of a number of individuals who had access to the towel.
So why the McCanns provided the dog handlers an item that might not have Maddie's scent on it?
-
I'm far from convinced the Portuguese handlers had ground-scenting dogs.
Certainly Harrison said they deployed air-scenting dogs, far the most commonly deployed type of dog generally ...
-
I'm far from convinced the Portuguese handlers had ground-scenting dogs.
Certainly Harrison said they deployed air-scenting dogs, far the most commonly deployed type of dog generally ...
Who care if you were convinced or not ?
You have no expertise in this fielf.
-
Whilst everyone else who spouts has?
-
Whilst everyone else who spouts has?
You pretend to, after 'googling'.
-
The dogs can only respond in relation to the item they are given to scent from.
The search & rescue dogs were given an Aztec towel, which may or may not have had Madeleine's scent on it, so the paths they followed may have belonged to any one of a number of individuals who had access to the towel.
This is not true.
If I remember well from the files:
The McCanns have given the dog handlers few different items belonging to Madeleine and the dogs have chosen her pink blanket.
-
This is not true.
If I remember well from the files:
The McCanns have given the dog handlers few different items belonging to Madeleine and the dogs have chosen her pink blanket.
And how would the dogs know which item to choose ?
-
And how would the dogs know which item to choose ?
I have no expertise in this but it seems the standard procedure.. the dogs get given items belonging to a missing person to sniff and they pick up an item out of few..This is what happened in this case too..
( If you read the dog handlers statements in the files - you will find this in their statements)
-
I have no expertise in this but it seems the standard procedure.. the dogs get given items belonging to a missing person to sniff and they pick up an item out of few..This is what happened in this case too..
( If you read the dog handlers statements in the files - you will find this in their statements)
I worded that badly. What I was meaning was how would the dogs know which was Madeleine's scent, as opposed to someone else's ?
-
I worded that badly. What I was meaning was how would the dogs know which was Madeleine's scent, as opposed to someone else's ?
I will word it right.. who else you think that scent can belong to?
If it was the parents the dogs would try to find the parents, if it was the twins, the dogs will get the twins. But, they haven't.
There in files I thought I have seen the dogs were given Madeleine's clothing and shoes but the strongest scent they found on her pink blanket.
This is, don't forget, Madeleine's live scent and this was applied less than 24 hours after she disappeared. So, quite soon..
This is why I think this little lead should be taken into account more seriously as this was performed very close to her disappearance. Then again. on May 8 and with the same results.
-
I will word it right.. who else you think that scent can belong to?
If it was the parents the dogs would try to find the parents, if it was the twins, the dogs will get the twins. But, they haven't.
There in files I thought I have seen the dogs were given Madeleine's clothing and shoes but the strongest scent they found on her pink blanket.
This is, don't forget, Madeleine's live scent and this was applied less than 24 hours after she disappeared. So, quite soon..
This is why I think this little lead should be taken into account more seriously as this was performed very close to her disappearance. Then again. on May 8 and with the same results.
I was thinking there might be a mixture of scents, rather like there was a mixture of DNA, which might have made it difficult for the dogs.
-
I was thinking there might be a mixture of scents, rather like there was a mixture of DNA, which might have made it difficult for the dogs.
If any other scent was dominant don't you agree the dogs would be able the find the second person? No one has left PDL in that 24 hours!
-
I worded that badly. What I was meaning was how would the dogs know which was Madeleine's scent, as opposed to someone else's ?
That's where you have two different types of dog and two different types of scent; one that is aerial and differentiates humans as unique from species of animal, but not one human as unique from another; a second at or just above ground level that does differentiate one human as unique from another.
Dogs that track the individual and unique scent are rare and specialised. There is only one police force in the UK that has them, and I don't believe the Portuguese did.
-
That's where you have two different types of dog and two different types of scent; one that is aerial and differentiates humans as unique from species of animal, but not one human as unique from another; a second at or just above ground level that does differentiate one human as unique from another.
Dogs that track the individual and unique scent are rare and specialised. There is only one police force in the UK that has them, and I don't believe the Portuguese did.
Thanks for that.
That would suggest then, that the dogs were probably not really tracking Madeleine.
-
That's where you have two different types of dog and two different types of scent; one that is aerial and differentiates humans as unique from species of animal, but not one human as unique from another; a second at or just above ground level that does differentiate one human as unique from another.
Dogs that track the individual and unique scent are rare and specialised. There is only one police force in the UK that has them, and I don't believe the Portuguese did.
They were offered specialist dogs ... but they were refused.
- Snip -
Stubborn Portuguese police chiefs are refusing to let the world’s best sniffer dogs join the hunt for Madeleine McCann.
Senior British cops last night urged officers leading the inquiry to accept help from UK dog teams before it is too late.
Two dogs attached to Britain’s National Policing Improvement Agency have developed such powerful tracking skills they can follow a scent for miles, even one up to 28 days old.
By sniffing an item of Maddie’s clothing, they could trace a trail that might finally unlock the mystery of the four-year-old’s disappearance.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id157.html
-
That's where you have two different types of dog and two different types of scent; one that is aerial and differentiates humans as unique from species of animal, but not one human as unique from another; a second at or just above ground level that does differentiate one human as unique from another.
Dogs that track the individual and unique scent are rare and specialised. There is only one police force in the UK that has them, and I don't believe the Portuguese did.
I think Portuguese search and rescue dogs are considered to be quite good and are quite high on the scale of these types of the dogs in the world.
I remember researching them and finding out Portugal is one of the four countries in the world responsible for the large scale of search and rescue operations, therefore they have to maintain the good standard of these operations, including the dogs.
Don't ask me where I found this, I have elephants memory and this I read at least 5 years ago..
-
I think Portuguese search and rescue dogs are considered to be quite good and are quite high on the scale of these types of the dogs in the world.
I remember researching them and finding out Portugal is one of the four countries in the world responsible for the large scale of search and rescue operations, therefore they have to maintain the good standard of these operations, including the dogs.
Don't ask me where I found this, I have elephants memory and this I read at least 5 years ago..
I don't doubt any of that for a second. Indeed, I am second to none in my admiration for the work of these handlers and their (I have not the slightest doubt) very well trained dogs.
But there was a fatal hindrance to their efforts. Their dogs were of the wrong discipline for the type of search required.
The clue is in the title, search and rescue.
For those types of operations, you want dogs of the type that will track the generic human scent, not the unique and individual one ...
-
IMO these dogs did find Madeleine's freshest scent.
I think their route should had been investigated more precisely.. ie. with a fine comb search at the time.
And if they indeed did find her scent the second question is what does this mean?
-
IMO these dogs did find Madeleine's freshest scent.
I think their route should had been investigated more precisely.. ie. with a fine comb search at the time.
And if they indeed did find her scent the second question is what does this mean?
I find it interesting that both dogs followed a trail to apartment 5j and am puzzled as to why the fridge had been left open allowing the food inside to rot.
>>>Clip<<< At about 23.00 accompanied by a PJ inspector, the searches were begun. After Rex was given the girl's clothing to sniff, he began to search on the ground floor of block 5 and when he passed the door of apartment 5 A (the place the girl had disappeared from) according to his handler, officer Fernandes, the dog altered its behaviour, sniffing with greater intensity than he had done before. Apartment 5J of the same block was also checked as the dog had been more agitated than before as if there were a very strong strange odour there. It was stated that this apartment had been unoccupied for some time. Afterwards, the same kind of search was carried out using the dog Zarus which in general terms showed the same behaviour in the same places as Rex had done.
It was only when all the searches of the apartments in blocks 4 and 5 were complete, that the behaviour described above was registered. It is certain that this kind of work does not correspond to the area that these dogs were trained in, but given that these types of dogs manage to discriminate a specific odour from others, although it could be a remote possibility that they related the odour of the missing girl with a possible location where she could have been.
On 10th May at about 20.10, upon the request of the PJ, searches were carried out in all of the apartments belonging to blocks 4 and 5 of the OC, two tracker dogs and two search and rescue dogs being used for this operation, adopting the same methods as those used on 7th May, just that this time the apartments were all open and searched one by one, being accompanied by a representative from the resort, who had the keys to all the apartments (apart from those not under her administration) and also with the objective of helping with the searches. The collaboration of all the guests occupying the apartments at that time was requested for this purpose and those apartments that were found to be empty were opened by the administrator.
All the apartments were searched by the dogs and when they arrived at apartment 5 J they began to sniff with intensity at the entrance door. During this behaviour it was noted by the PJ officers that there must be some unusual odour, but which with all certainty did not have anything to do with the odour being searched for, but there must have been something strange inside.
After entering the apartment, it was observed that the dour came from close to the fridge, which was open and contained some rotting meat and vegetables.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GNR_SNIFFER.htm#p13p3517
-
I find it interesting that both dogs followed a trail to apartment 5j and am puzzled as to why the fridge had been left open allowing the food inside to rot.
>>>Clip<<< At about 23.00 accompanied by a PJ inspector, the searches were begun. After Rex was given the girl's clothing to sniff, he began to search on the ground floor of block 5 and when he passed the door of apartment 5 A (the place the girl had disappeared from) according to his handler, officer Fernandes, the dog altered its behaviour, sniffing with greater intensity than he had done before. Apartment 5J of the same block was also checked as the dog had been more agitated than before as if there were a very strong strange odour there. It was stated that this apartment had been unoccupied for some time. Afterwards, the same kind of search was carried out using the dog Zarus which in general terms showed the same behaviour in the same places as Rex had done.
It was only when all the searches of the apartments in blocks 4 and 5 were complete, that the behaviour described above was registered. It is certain that this kind of work does not correspond to the area that these dogs were trained in, but given that these types of dogs manage to discriminate a specific odour from others, although it could be a remote possibility that they related the odour of the missing girl with a possible location where she could have been.
On 10th May at about 20.10, upon the request of the PJ, searches were carried out in all of the apartments belonging to blocks 4 and 5 of the OC, two tracker dogs and two search and rescue dogs being used for this operation, adopting the same methods as those used on 7th May, just that this time the apartments were all open and searched one by one, being accompanied by a representative from the resort, who had the keys to all the apartments (apart from those not under her administration) and also with the objective of helping with the searches. The collaboration of all the guests occupying the apartments at that time was requested for this purpose and those apartments that were found to be empty were opened by the administrator.
All the apartments were searched by the dogs and when they arrived at apartment 5 J they began to sniff with intensity at the entrance door. During this behaviour it was noted by the PJ officers that there must be some unusual odour, but which with all certainty did not have anything to do with the odour being searched for, but there must have been something strange inside.
After entering the apartment, it was observed that the dour came from close to the fridge, which was open and contained some rotting meat and vegetables.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GNR_SNIFFER.htm#p13p3517
Yes, I have seen these and read it at least 5 times.. This is one of the reports.
I notice here the first date of search is noted as 7th, which is incorrect. The first dogs searches were performed on the May 4.
-
Re the route followed by several GNR dogs to car park south of G6.
1. A trail ending in a car park indicates entry into a vehicle.
2. If the scent source was a towel used by the victim, the possibility exists that the towel might further have been used by another person (a person during the early search period using the 5A bathroom and washing and drying their hands). So now the towel has two or more person's scents on it. Presumably the GNR dogs would select the strongest of the several persons' scents on a towel, therefore the trail to that car park may possibly be not of the victim.
-
Re the route followed by several GNR dogs to car park south of G6.
1. A trail ending in a car park indicates entry into a vehicle.
2. If the scent source was a towel used by the victim, the possibility exists that the towel might further have been used by another person (a person during the early search period using the 5A bathroom and washing and drying their hands). So now the towel has two or more person's scents on it. Presumably the GNR dogs would select the strongest of the several persons' scents on a towel, therefore the trail to that car park may possibly be not of the victim.
It was not towel that was given to GNR dogs.. it was the pink blanket that Madeleine was covered with while sleeping. (I read somewhere else that the dogs actually chose this blanket among other items belonging to Madeleine)
They were given a pink/orange blanket that the child had been covered with in her bed.
From statement of Carlos Manuel Carvalho Lacão, GNR Officer :
They just talked to some colleagues from the PJ and asked for a piece of clothing that Madeleine had worn or used recently. They were given a pink/orange blanket that the child had been covered with in her bed.
They began searching with the dogs from the main entrance to the apartment, having given the blanket to his dog Numi to smell and begin to search.
-
It was not towel that was given to GNR dogs.. it was the pink blanket that Madeleine was covered with while sleeping. (I read somewhere else that the dogs actually chose this blanket among other items belonging to Madeleine)
They were given a pink/orange blanket that the child had been covered with in her bed.
(http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/maddiebedroom2.jpg)
I see here a pink comforter, but no blanket big enough to cover the child.
And Pedro Estevez, the dog handler stated:
On the 4th of May of the current year, around 22H30, he was asked to use the dogs in conjunction with a search that attempted to retrace the steps taken by the missing minor. His role was to use the dogs' skills by allowing them to sniff a towel which had supposedly been used by the minor in question.
Above statement is corroborated by his colleague, Antonio Silva:
He remembers that on the 4th of May of the current year, around 23H00, they attempted to tentatively identify and thus reconstruct the path taken by the missing minor. They gave the dogs a Turkish bath towel which was supposedly used by the child in question.
-
This is traditional blanket which almost every child in the uk has..
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Snugly-Soft-100-Cotton-Cellular-Baby-Blanket-Pram-Cot-Crib-or-Mosses-Blanket-/310794731170?pt=UK_Baby_NurseryBedding_RL&var=610219256675&hash=item485ccf3ea2
I believe Madeleine's blanket was of this sort and it was what was given to GNR officers.
There is no chance these dogs followed someone else's scent.
-
(http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/maddiebedroom2.jpg)
I see here a pink comforter, but no blanket big enough to cover the child.
And Pedro Estevez, the dog handler stated:
On the 4th of May of the current year, around 22H30, he was asked to use the dogs in conjunction with a search that attempted to retrace the steps taken by the missing minor. His role was to use the dogs' skills by allowing them to sniff a towel which had supposedly been used by the minor in question.
Above statement is corroborated by his colleague, Antonio Silva:
He remembers that on the 4th of May of the current year, around 23H00, they attempted to tentatively identify and thus reconstruct the path taken by the missing minor. They gave the dogs a Turkish bath towel which was supposedly used by the child in question.
4th May
After the officers had been updated about facts relating to the disappearance, they tried to reconstruct the route the girl might have taken with the two tracker dogs. For this purpose the dogs were given a blanket to sniff, provided by the parents, which had been used by Madeleine.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GNR_SNIFFER.htm#p13p3517
-
4th May
After the officers had been updated about facts relating to the disappearance, they tried to reconstruct the route the girl might have taken with the two tracker dogs. For this purpose the dogs were given a blanket to sniff, provided by the parents, which had been used by Madeleine.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GNR_SNIFFER.htm#p13p3517
Two dog handlers speaks about the towel. One of them, Antonio Silva, even describes it as a Turkish bath towel. Are you trying to suggest, that they did not know what they saw?
And I still don't see any big pink/orange blanket on Maddie's bed.
-
If you don't see a pink blanket on that bed I suggest you go visit an optician.
The pink blanket belonging to Madeleine has been given to GNR officers and the sniffer dog followed Madeleine's last scent.
All 4 of them.
-
Two dog handlers speaks about the towel. One of them, Antonio Silva, even describes it as a Turkish bath towel. Are you trying to suggest, that they did not know what they saw?
And I still don't see any big pink/orange blanket on Maddie's bed.
Martina, don't ask me. Ask the PJ ... I only c/p what is in the PJ files, and you will see it clearly says pink blanket.
-
It was not towel that was given to GNR dogs.. it was the pink blanket that Madeleine was covered with while sleeping. (I read somewhere else that the dogs actually chose this blanket among other items belonging to Madeleine)
They were given a pink/orange blanket that the child had been covered with in her bed.
Wrong dogs.
The search & rescue dogs - Rex & Zeus - deployed at 2300 hrs on 4th May were given the Aztec towel, which they used again on the 9th.
The GNR patrol dogs (not search &rescue trained) were the first ones deployed & they were given the pink blanket.
-
Wrong dogs.
The search & rescue dogs - Rex & Zeus - deployed at 2300 hrs on 4th May were given the Aztec towel, which they used again on the 9th.
The GNR patrol dogs (not search &rescue trained) were the first ones deployed & they were given the pink blanket.
It would be interesting to know what room that aztec towel was in.
If in bathroom it might have been used by peeps going bathroom during early search period.
If in another room then probably not.
-
Martina, don't ask me. Ask the PJ ... I only c/p what is in the PJ files, and you will see it clearly says pink blanket.
So I will copy a quote you used once more.
4th May
After the officers had been updated about facts relating to the disappearance, they tried to reconstruct the route the girl might have taken with the two tracker dogs. For this purpose the dogs were given a blanket to sniff, provided by the parents, which had been used by Madeleine.
Is there stated anywhere it was pink? Nope.
What is more, the two dog handlers clearly described a towel, specifying even that it was a bath towel. They were there and saw the item the McCanns gave. The person writing the report most probably did not. So how do you think, who might make a mistake?
-
It would be interesting to know what room that aztec towel was in.
If in bathroom it might have been used by peeps going bathroom during early search period.
If in another room then probably not.
Assuming that the towels were supplied by OC, & were probably identical, I don't see how anyone, even the McCanns, could have been 100% sure which towel Madeleine had used. 3 children there, 2 adults who both bathed that night. Some may even suggest DNA from another of the Tapas group!!
Wonder who selected the towel to give to the dogs, bearing in mind Kate & Gerry were at the police station for most of the day & went back to another apartment?
-
Wrong dogs.
The search & rescue dogs - Rex & Zeus - deployed at 2300 hrs on 4th May were given the Aztec towel, which they used again on the 9th.
The GNR patrol dogs (not search &rescue trained) were the first ones deployed & they were given the pink blanket.
I was under the impression that we were talking here about Rex and Zarus (not Zeus), that followed what is supposed to be the last route of Maddie from the apartment to the parking lot. And in the reports it is not mentioned that the Portimao patrol dogs were given anything to sniff.
-
I was under the impression that we were talking here about Rex and Zarus (not Zeus), that followed what is supposed to be the last route of Maddie from the apartment to the parking lot. And in the reports it is not mentioned that the Portimao patrol dogs were given anything to sniff.
Sorry, I stand corrected over the name of Zarus, it's a while since I read the full report.
The GNR dogs must have been given something to scent - otherwise, what was the point?
And Brietta is quite correct - the final GNR report on the s&r dogs is factually different from the statements given by their handlers Silva & Fernandes regarding the items used for scenting. (Too tired to cut & paste all the relevant bits now)
-
IMO the first ever dog search which was within the first 24 hours was the most important.
-
IMO the first ever dog search which was within the first 24 hours was the most important.
That's a reasonable point.
IIRC these first GNR dogs started their trail outside, just outside the front door, not inside?
-
Sorry, I stand corrected over the name of Zarus, it's a while since I read the full report.
The GNR dogs must have been given something to scent - otherwise, what was the point?
And Brietta is quite correct - the final GNR report on the s&r dogs is factually different from the statements given by their handlers Silva & Fernandes regarding the items used for scenting. (Too tired to cut & paste all the relevant bits now)
I don't think these dogs and their handlers were given the credit they were due.
In the circumstances they produced results, unfortunately it seems that what they did was never built on.
IMO more work should have been done to try and ascertain what vehicles were in the car park where the trail followed came to an end.
A situation which the McCann lawyer is on record as deploring.
>Clip<These vital clues were never followed up by the Portuguese police, according to Isabel Duarte, the Lisbon lawyer acting for Madeleine’s parents, Kate and Gerry McCann.
Shortly after Madeleine was taken from Apartment 5A at the Ocean Club at Praia da Luz, five years ago this Thursday, a sniffer dog picked up her scent at a nearby car park.
Mrs Duarte said: “This was a significant moment at a critical time, yet there is very little about it in the police files. There doesn’t appear to have been any forensic work at the spot in the car park identified by the dog. More work should have been done.”
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/317111/Madeleine-McCann-The-lost-clues
Witness Statement of Antonio Freitas Silva
Date: 2007.05.09
Location: DIC Portimao
Occupation: 1st Sergeant GNR
Location: GNR-Queluz
The deponent states that:
- He comes to the process in the role of Chief of the GNR Search and Rescue Team. He coordinated all the work carried out by the two sniffer dogs in the Luz zone and the immediate areas relating to the disappearance of the English minor Madeleine McCann from the Ocean Club.
- He remembers that on the 4th of May of the current year, around 23H00, they attempted to tentatively identify and thus reconstruct the path taken by the missing minor. They gave the dogs a Turkish bath towel which was supposedly used by the child in question. This operation was realised by two different dogs.
- That after having given the sniffer dog the towel and next to the residence of the missing girl, more specifically, next to apartment block 5A and 5, the first sniffer dog headed toward the door of that apartment. Immediately afterward, he headed in the direction of block 4, returned around block 5, and came down a road that exists between this block and the leisure area (pools, restaurants, etc). He turned right; in the direction of the aforementioned apartment and headed toward the main road. There, he crossed the street and next to the wall of block 6, turned right, and headed toward the contiguous parking area. More concretely, he headed next to a light post and sniffed the ground around that post. After this, he crossed the street again and headed toward the access zone to the restaurants and pool area, sniffing the door which was closed at that time. He again went to the parking zone, and at that point, lost the scent.
- When carrying out this operation with the second dog, he followed the same rout, took the same direction and headed toward the light post in the parking lot mentioned above. He sniffed the area and at that point appeared to have lost the scent. The only difference was that this dog did not head toward the entrance of the restaurant or the pool area.
- None of the dogs used in this search, after having been given the towel supposedly used by the child, entered into block 5 but went immediately to the street between the apartment and the leisure area. It should be taken into account that the second sniffer dog may have been conditioned by the first sniffer dog. That is to say that in the case of doubt, the second dog may have followed the second of the first.
- Taking into account the aforementioned results, he states that it can be confirmed with a certain degree of certainty that the missing child passed by that location, on that day or on a previous day. This situation can be explained by the nature of the terrain, that is, it is a small space enclosed by walls and as such lingering scents would take longer to dissipate.
- Yesterday (08.05.2007) around 23H45, this search action was repeated but this time the dogs were sent into blocks 5 and 4 of the ‘Ocean Club’ resort. During this operation, and given the time that had passed combined with the heat, the results that were achieved are very relative given that the dog will confirm all the odours it scents, certainly alerting to those that are most active, namely due to the fact that the apartment was occupied. It is also noted that the dog’s perception in the interior may be affected by noise.
- The initial diligence carried out with first sniffer dog, after having sniffed the towel used in the previous operation, began searching and showing interest in some doors leading to other apartments. He did not show any interest or even approach other apartments. In none of these actions did the dog give the signal to his trainer, Soldado Fernandes. It is certain however, that the dog signalled next to apartments 5J, 5H, and 4G. He showed great interest in sniffing these doors and the immediate areas. Next to door 5H there were two bags of rubbish and the odour may have distracted the dog. Outside 4G was a tray of plates, cutlery and cloth napkins that had apparently been used. This apartment is where the parents of the missing child were staying (at the time). Concerning apartment 5J, the same may have been conditioned by the presence of people in the interior or he could have sniffed an odour that needed to be confirmed.
- He states that after the search inside block 5, and whilst in the exterior, the sniffer dog took the same route on 04.05.07, being the existent road of that apartment and the leisure area (pools and restaurant) and then went to the same parking area. At that point, the scent was lost. This situation may be related to the fact that the biggest concentration of odours are in that area and due to the fact that odours are better preserved near walls and away from major winds. It is certain that upon reaching the main road and turning right is where the biggest concentration of odours exist. This is where the dog lost interest.
- The second dog was taken through the same operation and also showed interest at the door of apartment 5J. This same dog jumped on his hind paws to the parapet of the veranda and raised his head as though in search of an odour. As related above, this interest could have been the result of various factors but it is certain that in this area the scent was intense. In the exterior, the sniffer dog immediately headed to the parking area next to block 6 and there apparently lost the scent.
- I would like to clarify that a search in a bad area, where a more intense odour perceived by the sniffer dog, such as in an urban area due to the large concentration of external odours, make it possible to confuse the dog. In this situation, search activity is very difficult as is the case when some time has passed since the event in question.
- Because he is asked, he states that in relation to this, it is difficult to evaluate precisely the work of the sniffer dog. It is clear that some conditions involved in this action augment the degree of uncertainty. The signalling of the dog may only signify that they are confirming an intense odour in a zone. On the other hand, given the interest of the dog(s) in some of the apartment doorways, this could signify nothing, but could also very well mean that the dog has caught the odour. The dog did not demonstrate to its owner that it had found the scent it was searching for.
- And nothing more was said. Reads, ratifies and signs.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ANTONIO_SILVA.htm
-
If there was a car parked there and Madeleine was transported by this car they can maybe find this person through the phone data if looking carefully.
For example if the person's phone connected to a mast serving 5A area but shortly after the same person's phone connected to a different mast that means this person was not travelling on foot but by car..
Using mathematics would help here ?{)(**
Furthermore if the same phone number has connected to the mast serving 5A in the days prior to this incident and then the phone stopped using this mast in a short while and was connecting to a different mast then they would know this person had a car parked near 5A and was travelling by this car.
This is how they can identify persons of interest as not many people used their car in that area that night.
( this is for the case that the GNR dogs lost their trail in the car park due to Madeleine being put in a car and driven away)
-
If there was a car parked there and Madeleine was transported by this car they can maybe find this person through the phone data if looking carefully.
For example if the person's phone connected to a mast serving 5A area but shortly after the same person's phone connected to a different mast that means this person was not travelling on foot but by car..
Using mathematics would help here ?{)(**
Furthermore if the same phone number has connected to the mast serving 5A in the days prior to this incident and then the phone stopped using this mast in a short while and was connecting to a different mast then they would know this person had a car parked near 5A and was travelling by this car.
This is how they can identify persons of interest as not many people used their car in that area that night.
( this is for the case that the GNR dogs lost their trail in the car park due to Madeleine being put in a car and driven away)
Perhaps this has been done already by the Met and PJ who are working this case systematically, this may have led them to the outlying areas they have shown interest in.
Old fashioned methods should also have been used back in 2007 when a witness might have remembered something relevant. I think it would have been relatively easy to have made a start on eliminating who might have been parked in that spot.
Residents could have been asked as is sometimes done when people who walk and drive regularly are stopped and asked about an incident.
It was opposite the Tapas, staff might have parked there or knew people who did.
Someone's regular parking spot might have been taken on that night.
Perhaps someone who had thought nothing about a car parked in a car park might have recalled seeing one if asked.
If no-one had any information, at least the attempt would have been made.
-
Perhaps this has been done already by the Met and PJ who are working this case systematically, this may have led them to the outlying areas they have shown interest in.
Old fashioned methods should also have been used back in 2007 when a witness might have remembered something relevant. I think it would have been relatively easy to have made a start on eliminating who might have been parked in that spot.
Residents could have been asked as is sometimes done when people who walk and drive regularly are stopped and asked about an incident.
It was opposite the Tapas, staff might have parked there or knew people who did.
Someone's regular parking spot might have been taken on that night.
Perhaps someone who had thought nothing about a car parked in a car park might have recalled seeing one if asked.
If no-one had any information, at least the attempt would have been made.
This is exactly what I have been saying in the past 7 years..
When the dogs lost the trail there why the hell they did not question all of the residents in the surrounding building about the specific parking spot where the 4 different dogs lost the trail of live Madeleine.
-
This is exactly what I have been saying in the past 7 years..
When the dogs lost the trail there why the hell they did not question all of the residents in the surrounding building about the specific parking spot where the 4 different dogs lost the trail of live Madeleine.
I think it could only have been down to the direction given to the officers by their superiors.
IMO it is obvious from the volume of information contained in the files that the GNR carried out all the appropriate policing diligences possible.
I believe their work to be the foundation of the present inquiries being undertaken by the Met and the PJ.
Unfortunately like the work of the GNR dogs it seems to have been largely ignored by those in charge and not given the attention it deserved.
-
For PJ it is simple they can ask even now the GNR handlers to point out exactly which lamppost the trail ended near.
For us, we can't ask the GNR handlers, so we need to work out which lamppost it was.
IIRC there are only two at this carpark and it's easy to find their exact locations.
-
For PJ it is simple they can ask even now the GNR handlers to point out exactly which lamppost the trail ended near.
For us, we can't ask the GNR handlers, so we need to work out which lamppost it was.
IIRC there are only two at this carpark and it's easy to find their exact locations.
I thought we know which lampost that was. The photo of it with the parking lot behind I've seen posted many times on different forums during the past 7 years.
-
I thought we know which lampost that was. The photo of it with the parking lot behind I've seen posted many times on different forums during the past 7 years.
There are two lampposts. IMO the one at the entrance which you mention is slightly less likely than the one further in
The handlers' statements do not specify which of those two lampposts it was.
The map in the files is crude and doesn't represent the exact trail of the dogs.
I post photos in a few mins.
-
lamppost 1
https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=praia+da+luz&ll=37.088511,-8.730467&spn=0.00261,0.004935&client=ubuntu&channel=fs&oe=utf-8&gl=uk&hnear=Luz,+Portugal&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=37.088511,-8.730467&panoid=ezoV5DZyQjGraHlvA4n_tA&cbp=12,270.12,,0,0.98
lamppost 2
https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=praia+da+luz&ll=37.088511,-8.730467&spn=0.00261,0.004935&channel=fs&oe=utf-8&gl=uk&hnear=Luz,+Portugal&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=37.088511,-8.730467&panoid=ezoV5DZyQjGraHlvA4n_tA&cbp=12,1.69,,0,8.71
-
lamppost 1
https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=praia+da+luz&ll=37.088511,-8.730467&spn=0.00261,0.004935&client=ubuntu&channel=fs&oe=utf-8&gl=uk&hnear=Luz,+Portugal&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=37.088511,-8.730467&panoid=ezoV5DZyQjGraHlvA4n_tA&cbp=12,270.12,,0,0.98
lamppost 2
https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=praia+da+luz&ll=37.088511,-8.730467&spn=0.00261,0.004935&channel=fs&oe=utf-8&gl=uk&hnear=Luz,+Portugal&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=37.088511,-8.730467&panoid=ezoV5DZyQjGraHlvA4n_tA&cbp=12,1.69,,0,8.71
I think it is the one on the photo 1. The closest to the road.
-
lamppost 1
https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=praia+da+luz&ll=37.088511,-8.730467&spn=0.00261,0.004935&client=ubuntu&channel=fs&oe=utf-8&gl=uk&hnear=Luz,+Portugal&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=37.088511,-8.730467&panoid=ezoV5DZyQjGraHlvA4n_tA&cbp=12,270.12,,0,0.98
lamppost 2
https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=praia+da+luz&ll=37.088511,-8.730467&spn=0.00261,0.004935&channel=fs&oe=utf-8&gl=uk&hnear=Luz,+Portugal&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=37.088511,-8.730467&panoid=ezoV5DZyQjGraHlvA4n_tA&cbp=12,1.69,,0,8.71
Both are on the short cut path route that she took to the kids club.
-
Both are on the short cut path route that she took to the kids club.
Didn't they also walk to the Millenium for breakfasts?
-
Didn't they also walk to the Millenium for breakfasts?
No they had breakfast at 5A as the Millennium was too far away after going once on the day they arrived SAT.
"The head of the restaurant, Luis Barros, contactable on mobile xxx, clarified that the group of whom the missing child and her parents were part, comprising eight adults and nine children, ate in that restaurant on the day they arrived, namely 28.04.2007"
-
lamppost 1
https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=praia+da+luz&ll=37.088511,-8.730467&spn=0.00261,0.004935&client=ubuntu&channel=fs&oe=utf-8&gl=uk&hnear=Luz,+Portugal&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=37.088511,-8.730467&panoid=ezoV5DZyQjGraHlvA4n_tA&cbp=12,270.12,,0,0.98
lamppost 2
https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=praia+da+luz&ll=37.088511,-8.730467&spn=0.00261,0.004935&channel=fs&oe=utf-8&gl=uk&hnear=Luz,+Portugal&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=37.088511,-8.730467&panoid=ezoV5DZyQjGraHlvA4n_tA&cbp=12,1.69,,0,8.71
I think it is lamp post 1 as well ... if you progress forward on the map to the entrance and look up the street ... there is a direct line of vision to the side gate at apartment 5a and the entrance to the Tapas.
Might there have been a phone call from there to the apartment warning that Gerry and Jez were in the street?
-
Wasn't one of the creches close to the Millennium restaurant?
If that were the case, they would have to walk that way at some point, so why not for breakfast?
-
Madeleine short cut path route from 5A to crèche. The path passes both lamp posts.
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/J/47e655c6.jpg)
-
If these dogs were mimicking Madeleine's trips to the creche why none of them actually went to the creche?
IMO this was her last known path. She was put in a car there!
-
Because the car park is a big open space. If they stayed on the path further up they may have followed her scent to the crèche.
-
Was her last journey not from where she had tea?
-
No they had breakfast at 5A as the Millennium was too far away after going once on the day they arrived SAT.
"The head of the restaurant, Luis Barros, contactable on mobile xxx, clarified that the group of whom the missing child and her parents were part, comprising eight adults and nine children, ate in that restaurant on the day they arrived, namely 28.04.2007"
Well a lady that received guests at the entrance of the Millenium, Cecilia Paula Dias Firmino do Carmo, stated that:
When asked, she says that she knows the parents, the siblings and Madeleine. She received them for breakfast on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, she does not know whether they went for breakfast on Sunday or Monday, as these were her days off.
So it is quite possible that not only Maddie was walking this route every single day, but also Amelie.
-
Was her last journey not from where she had tea?
No, her last journey for me is when she was taken from the apartment.
-
Well a lady that received guests at the entrance of the Millenium, Cecilia Paula Dias Firmino do Carmo, stated that:
When asked, she says that she knows the parents, the siblings and Madeleine. She received them for breakfast on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, she does not know whether they went for breakfast on Sunday or Monday, as these were her days off.
So it is quite possible that not only Maddie was walking this route every single day, but also Amelie.
Yes that statement contradicts all others.
-
No, her last journey for me is when she was taken from the apartment.
Agreed. I was meaning her last journey to the apartment.
If she were carried, detecting her scent might have been difficult, though not impossible.
-
Agreed. I was meaning her last journey to the apartment.
If she were carried, detecting her scent might have been difficult, though not impossible.
Her last journey was from the tapas area following the path around to the front key door arriving at 5:40. One dog went across the road from the car park to the tapas entrance but it was shut.
"There, he crossed the street and next to the wall of block 6, turned right, and headed toward the contiguous parking area. More concretely, he headed next to a light post and sniffed the ground around that post. After this, he crossed the street again and headed toward the access zone to the restaurants and pool area, sniffing the door which was closed at that time. He again went to the parking zone, and at that point, lost the scent."
Pages 762 to 765
Witness Statement
Antonio Freitas Silva
Date: 2007.05.09
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id258.html
-
The most significant is that all dogs went to the lamp post and to the parking area. None of them never continued towards creche and the first dogs did it less then 24 hour after her disappearance.
So why exactly they stopped there it was never investigated! The police was searching some extremely bizarre events and calls but never this very significant clue!
To me this indicates that she even might have been walking on this route and was taken into a car.
Or she could have been in a pushchair and her feet touching the ground..
-
Madeleine short cut path route from 5A to crèche. The path passes both lamp posts.
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/J/47e655c6.jpg)
IMO your map does not show the exact shortcut route used by the parents to take her to/from creche.
-
By simply referring to the 6th Sept statement of an honest witness, the correct path is found:
"via a path in front of the small reception and then through a garden area and stairs"
Click map to enlarge. Yellow line is the route which fits the statement, dashed yellow line is a possible variation.
-
Thanks Pegasus. That is not my picture of the short cut. Actually the main point is that the dogs would've found Madeleine's scent at the lamp post because it was on the short cut path route to the crèche whichever way they used to get there it was still a short cut. Losing the scent at the car park is not surprising in a big open space.
-
Yellow: 2 lampposts.
Mauve: 3 vehicle parking locations.
Click to enlarge
-
Dogs route
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/08/06/article-1042099-022F939200000578-880_468x304.jpg)
-
Thanks Pegasus. That is not my picture of the short cut. Actually the main point is that the dogs would've found Madeleine's scent at the lamp post because it was on the short cut path route to the crèche whichever way they used to get there it was still a short cut. Losing the scent at the car park is not surprising in a big open space.
Why they didn't go to the creche then? Why none of 4 dogs went to the creche and why all of them stopped at the lamp post?
-
Yellow: 2 lampposts.
Mauve: 3 vehicle parking locations.
Click to enlarge
Nobody would leave a getaway car there and with SY following Smithman with no car then they don't believe that nonsense either.
-
Dogs route
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/08/06/article-1042099-022F939200000578-880_468x304.jpg)
Would Madeleine have been taken via the route followed by the dogs which followed the front of block five in the direction of block four.
Then down the lane between the blocks four and five, to walk the length of the lane behind block five.
Why not just exit the front of block five, go through the car park and turn right in the direction of the Tapas?
-
Why they didn't go to the creche then? Why none of 4 dogs went to the creche and why all of them stopped at the lamp post?
Good point.
And BTW I see no manhole next to either of these lampposts.
-
...Why not just exit the front of block five, go through the car park and turn right in the direction of the Tapas?
If we are looking at the scenario that a child exits alone, and via the front (north door), intending to go for example to tapas to see parents, then I think it is more likely to be via the path between blocks 5 and 4 and then the path along south side of block 5.
-
If following logics this route would actually mean she went out on her own. And through the front (main)doors!
What I often wondered is whether Gerry after going to toilet and leaving though the main doors maybe accidentally left the main doors open?
I thought and thought but then even if Madeleine went out on her own what happened to her????
-
Nobody would leave a getaway car opposite there and with SY following Smithman with no car then they don't believe that nonsense either.
Perhaps the vehicle was to move in the direction of wherever the burglar?? was operating on a prearranged signal.
On one occasion a plasma TV was stolen, that would require transport.
Maybe a child had never entered the equation ... so there would have been no thought about openly carrying a child to a get away vehicle ... but for some unknown reason one did.
If the Smith Sighting is not another innocent man, IMO something went seriously wrong.
Whether that was a planned abduction or a burglary I don't know, but someone does and the Met and the PJ are snapping at their heels.
In the interim there is a lot which is not understood about the behaviour of the GNR dogs.
-
Something went seriously wrong alright but not anything you guys are fantasising about.
-
If following logics this route would actually mean she went out on her own. And through the front (main)doors!
What I often wondered is whether Gerry after going to toilet and leaving though the main doors maybe accidentally left the main doors open?
I thought and thought but then even if Madeleine went out on her own what happened to her????
If you are assuming that the scent which the GNR dogs tracked is the missing child's (IMO unlikely), then obviously it would indicate entry into a vehicle parked adjacent to the lamppost?
-
The car park where the dogs stopped - is that the one which services the apartments Graham MacKenzie was temporarily allocated on the last day of his holiday - the one where all the discarded cigarette butts were found?
The "spotter" knew which route the parents took to check on their children -maybe that explains why the abductor/Madeleine's scent circumvents the block in the way it does. When the abductor reaches the end of the back pathway past the rear of 5a , the spotter on the top balcony opposite can give the all-clear to cross the road to the car park.
-
The car park where the dogs stopped - is that the one which services the apartments Graham MacKenzie was temporarily allocated on the last day of his holiday - the one where all the discarded cigarette butts were found?
The "spotter" knew which route the parents took to check on their children -maybe that explains why the abductor/Madeleine's scent circumvents the block in the way it does. When the abductor reaches the end of the back pathway past the rear of 5a , the spotter on the top balcony opposite can give the all-clear to cross the road to the car park.
The main carpark for block G6 is north of block G6.
The GNR dogs went to the carpark south of block G6.
If you are living in G6 you might choose to park in either.
-
Nobody believed the dogs route because everyone believed Jane Tanner's account and her bundleman went different route.
Madeleine could not have got out on her own even if the doors were left open by mistake.
Who opened the window then?
-
Nobody believed the dogs route because everyone believed Jane Tanner's account and her bundleman went different route.
Madeleine could not have got out on her own even if the doors were left open by mistake.
Who opened the window then?
The abductor opened the window, to make it look like a burglary & to dispel the smell of chloroform more quickly.
Maybe he (or she) would have passed out themselves without the fresh air.
-
The abductor opened the window, to make it look like a burglary & to dispel the smell of chloroform more quickly.
Maybe he (or she) would have passed out themselves without the fresh air.
Chloroform?
You think that was used? In PDL?
Wouldn't it be a little bit hard to buy it anywhere in Algarve let alone PDL.
If this was the case then this chloroform would have been brought in from somewhere else and whoever took Madeleine would then disappear together with her.. SY and PJ would know through the phone records if anyone left PDL and never came back..
-
The abductor opened the window, to make it look like a burglary & to dispel the smell of chloroform more quickly.
Maybe he (or she) would have passed out themselves without the fresh air.
Why would the abductor want to make it look like a burglary? It would be much esier for him to direct the suspicion at the parents by not opening that window.
And there was no risk of passing out for the abductor, unless he sniffed the cloth he used to sedate Maddie. Chloroform is a liquid, you know, not a gas. Anyway it requires about five minutes (shorter time for a small child but it still would not work thunder fast) of inhaling to get incapacitated by it. Incapacitation with ether takes even longer.
-
Chloroform?
You think that was used? In PDL?
Wouldn't it be a little bit hard to buy it anywhere in Algarve let alone PDL.
If this was the case then this chloroform would have been brought in from somewhere else and whoever took Madeleine would then disappear together with her.. SY and PJ would know through the phone records if anyone left PDL and never came back..
Taken form Wikipedia under "Chloroform"
Inadvertent formation of chloroform
The haloform reaction can also occur inadvertently in domestic settings. Bleaching with hypochlorite generates halogenated compounds in side reactions; chloroform is the main byproduct.[19] Sodium hypochlorite solution (chlorine bleach) mixed with common household liquids such as acetone, butanone, ethanol, or isopropyl alcohol can produce some chloroform, in addition to other compounds such as chloroacetone or dichloroacetone.
Anyone cleaning swimming pools would have a supply of chlorine.
RM had a key to a garage owned by his partner's estranged hubby which contained the necessary substance.
-
Taken form Wikipedia under "Chloroform"
Inadvertent formation of chloroform
The haloform reaction can also occur inadvertently in domestic settings. Bleaching with hypochlorite generates halogenated compounds in side reactions; chloroform is the main byproduct.[19] Sodium hypochlorite solution (chlorine bleach) mixed with common household liquids such as acetone, butanone, ethanol, or isopropyl alcohol can produce some chloroform, in addition to other compounds such as chloroacetone or dichloroacetone.
Anyone cleaning swimming pools would have a supply of chlorine.
RM had a key to a garage owned by his partner's estranged hubby which contained the necessary substance.
Just explain how would the perp make Maddie to inhale this home made chloroform for couple of minutes.
-
Why would the abductor want to make it look like a burglary? It would be much esier for him to direct the suspicion at the parents by not opening that window.
And there was no risk of passing out for the abductor, unless he sniffed the cloth he used to sedate Maddie. Chloroform is a liquid, you know, not a gas. Anyway it requires about five minutes (shorter time for a small child but it still would not work thunder fast) of inhaling to get incapacitated by it. Incapacitation with ether takes even longer.
Opening the window was to divert suspicion from access being gained with a key, not to divert suspicion to the parents. The abductor could never have imagined the scenario which followed and the accusations made against the parents & their friends.
Re. the chloroform - there were 3 children to sedate, not just one.
-
Just explain how would the perp make Maddie to inhale this home made chloroform for couple of minutes.
Umm...by holding a cloth soaked in the stuff over her nose & mouth?? She was sleeping...
-
Umm...by holding a cloth soaked in the stuff over her nose & mouth?? She was sleeping...
So how do you deal with the shutter noise? Why do you even have him opening the window at all?
-
Opening the window was to divert suspicion from access being gained with a key, not to divert suspicion to the parents. The abductor could never have imagined the scenario which followed and the accusations made against the parents & their friends.
If the perp was not a total idiot with no functional brain cells, he would know that in case of the child missing from the locked flat the suspicion alls first on the ones who have the key. In this case that would be the parents, then eventually the OC workers. Still, if the OC worker was an active helper of the perp, he (or she) would not admit of lending that key to anyone.
Re. the chloroform - there were 3 children to sedate, not just one.
So how many time he spent in the apartment then? I remind you, chloroform does not sedate in an eye blink, the person being sedated must inhale it for a couple of minutes. And I repeat it is a liquid. You don't spray it around, you pour it on a rag and put that rag under the nose of the person that is supposed to be incapacitated.
-
Umm...by holding a cloth soaked in the stuff over her nose & mouth?? She was sleeping...
Both chloroform and ether have a very strong and rather smell and none of these substances would incapacitate her in a moment. She would need to inhale the chloroform for a couple of minutes and that smell would certainly wake her up.
-
Both chloroform and ether have a very strong and rather smell and none of these substances would incapacitate her in a moment. She would need to inhale the chloroform for a couple of minutes and that smell would certainly wake her up.
We are getting very off-topic now.
Even if she awoke, someone smothering her face would prevent her uttering any real noise. She was only 3.
It's really funny, because so many don't have a problem with the time it would have taken for the McCanns to have cleaned up & hidden the body without trace in such a limited time frame, yet chloroforming for a few minutes is beyond the realms of possibility.
Such is life!
-
We are getting very off-topic now.
Even if she awoke, someone smothering her face would prevent her uttering any real noise. She was only 3.
When you smother someone, you close their airways, what actually would prevent any sedation by inhaling. The person sedated by chloroform has to inhale it, deeply, for couple of minutes. Pressing a rag, soaked with it to the victim's face orks only in the movies.
It's really funny, because so many don't have a problem with the time it would have taken for the McCanns to have cleaned up & hidden the body without trace in such a limited time frame, yet chloroforming for a few minutes is beyond the realms of possibility.
Such is life!
Because it is. Can you imagine the perp sitting these three - four minutes by each child, hoping they won't be awake by the smell? That's some nine to twelve minutes spent on sedating the children alone, a friggin lot in time for someone who has to do his deed in between the check-ups done every fifteen minutes.
-
When you smother someone, you close their airways, what actually would prevent any sedation by inhaling. The person sedated by chloroform has to inhale it, deeply, for couple of minutes. Pressing a rag, soaked with it to the victim's face orks only in the movies.
Because it is. Can you imagine the perp sitting these three - four minutes by each child, hoping they won't be awake by the smell? That's some nine to twelve minutes spent on sedating the children alone, a friggin lot in time for someone who has to do his deed in between the check-ups done every fifteen minutes.
OK, not "smother" then, just holding it over the nose & mouth area so the child is gasping for breath, increasing the speed of inhalation.
But as Matthew didn't even enter the bedroom, and no-one is sure Gerry did either, I think the abductor had more than enough time to do the necessary.
-
OK, not "smother" then, just holding it over the nose & mouth area so the child is gasping for breath, increasing the speed of inhalation.
But as Matthew didn't even enter the bedroom, and no-one is sure Gerry did either, I think the abductor had more than enough time to do the necessary.
How comes they did not smell the aroma of chloroform?
-
... no-one is sure...
But one person is sure, according to statement.
Back to the GNR dogs' trail, surely at least one or more of the various adults who entered the apartment from 10pm to 11pm would have at some point needed a wee? If so, there is the possibility they rinsed their hands, and used whatever towel happened to be there. So there is a possibility that a towel used by the missing child at bathtime, may also between 10pm and 11pm have been used by someone else. There was no sign on the towel "do not use this one"
-
But one person is sure, according to statement.
Back to the GNR dogs' trail, surely at least one or more of the various adults who entered the apartment from 10pm to 11pm would have at some point needed a wee? If so, there is the possibility they rinsed their hands, and used whatever towel happened to be there. So there is a possibility that a towel used by the missing child at bathtime, may also between 10pm and 11pm have been used by someone else. There was no sign on the towel "do not use this one"
According to Kate McCann's book Madeleine, page 85
I recall one of the GNR patrol officers asking us for some of Madeleine's clothing or belonging to enable these dogs to identify her scent. I fetched the pink princess blanket she took to bed with her every night, which they took and some of her clothes which they didn't.
-
Thankyou for that quote from the book, an honest witness IMO, so certainly GNR were handed the blanket.
For tracking using bathtowel, I was pointing out there might easily be another person's scent also on towel (and maybe stronger than the child's) via searcher(s) using toilet then washing/drying hands.
For tracking using blanket, the comfort object, I agree the strongest scent on that is likely to have been be the child's.
This trail seems impossible to solve, but maybe we will get there.
-
The other route would be more believable because it connects to the Smithman sighting. From 5A to Baptista supermarket but that wouldn't explain why the child was in a deep sleep. I think the dogs explained that one which would eliminate any hypothesis of the child leaving the apartment on her own.
-
Thankyou for that quote from the book, an honest witness IMO, so certainly GNR were handed the blanket.
Becaust Kate cannot be wrong. Or confuse something in her memory. Two policemen must be wrong, because she cannot.
Rex and Zarus, who went to the carpark, were given the bath towel. The blanket was given to the Portimao dogs, Numi and Kit, who arrived with their handlers to the Ocean Club at 2:30 a.m. One of the handlers stated:
When they arrived at the scene, they entered the McCann's apartment by the front door, and entered the living room, where there were some PJ officers as well as the MCCann couple. The just talked to some colleagues from the PJ and asked for a piece of clothing that Madeleine had worn or used recently. They were given a pink/orange blanket that the child had been covered with in her bed.
They began searching with the dogs from the main entrance to the apartment, having given the blanket to his dog Numi to smell and begin to search.
The route initially taken was from the front entrance door to the passageway between Blocks 4 and 5, along the corridor and then along the passage that leads past the entrance to the small reception to the resort's swimming pool. After that the whole of the area surrounding the resort was searched.
So, basically, these two dogs covered the last known route of Maddie, from the Tapas area to the apartment. Interesting.
-
Amaral said the pink blanket was returned and it hasn't been seen since.
-
The other route would be much more believable because it connects to the Smithman sighting. From 5A to Baptista supermarket ......
The press report ages ago claiming GNR dogs tracked scent from 5A to supermarket carpark, was IMO a mistake by a journalist who misinterpreted the actual route tracked.
-
The press report ages ago claiming GNR dogs tracked scent from 5A to supermarket carpark, was IMO a mistake by a journalist who misinterpreted the actual route tracked.
Madeleine had made that trip to the supermarket.
"On the following days, and because the bar was quite far away, they started buying food at the “BATISTA” supermarket, which is located on the same road as the apartment, and they had their first meal of the day at the apartment."
"They all left by the main door because of the buggies, went around to the right, down the street of the “BATISTA” supermarket and went to the beach along a road directly ahead."
So they must have missed the church. Asking for directions to it days later >@@(*&)
-
Becaust Kate cannot be wrong. Or confuse something in her memory. Two policemen must be wrong, because she cannot.
There is no contradiction. The witness, and the GNR, are both truthful.
KM's truthful statement in book, that she handed the comfort blanket to GNR, I see no reason to doubt.
Also IIRC at least one GNR handler states that a blanket was used as a scent source.
I will try to find a link for that - I will look silly if I am wrong, which is possible.
-
There is no contradiction.
KM's truthful statement in book, that she handed the comfort blanket to GNR, I see no reason to doubt.
Also IIRC at least one GNR handler states that a blanket was used as a scent source.
I will try to find a link for that - I will look silly if I am wrong, which is possible.
So you don't think it was returned? Why would they keep the missing child's blanket? Amaral was looking for it.
-
There is no contradiction. The witness, and the GNR, are both truthful.
KM's truthful statement in book, that she handed the comfort blanket to GNR, I see no reason to doubt.
Also IIRC at least one GNR handler states that a blanket was used as a scent source.
I will try to find a link for that - I will look silly if I am wrong, which is possible.
I'll copy my previous post.
Rex and Zarus, who went to the carpark, were given the bath towel. The blanket was given to the Portimao dogs, Numi and Kit, who arrived with their handlers to the Ocean Club at 2:30 a.m. One of the handlers stated:
When they arrived at the scene, they entered the McCann's apartment by the front door, and entered the living room, where there were some PJ officers as well as the MCCann couple. The just talked to some colleagues from the PJ and asked for a piece of clothing that Madeleine had worn or used recently. They were given a pink/orange blanket that the child had been covered with in her bed.
They began searching with the dogs from the main entrance to the apartment, having given the blanket to his dog Numi to smell and begin to search.
The route initially taken was from the front entrance door to the passageway between Blocks 4 and 5, along the corridor and then along the passage that leads past the entrance to the small reception to the resort's swimming pool. After that the whole of the area surrounding the resort was searched.
So, basically, these two dogs covered the last known route of Maddie, from the Tapas area to the apartment. Interesting.
The handler in question is Carlos Manuel Carvalho Lacão. I repeat, Rex and Zarus who traced Maddie's route to the parking lot were given a towel. Not a blanket. The dogs that sniffed blanket went to the Tapas area.
-
Excellent work. Yes they followed her last route from the tapas to 5A re pink blanket. Pink blanket not seen again >@@(*&)
-
IMO if your theory were correct, the GNR dogs would have tracked from 5A to your bins.
IMO those GNR dogs can track a person in any status being openly carried, just as easily as they can track a person walking.
That's not my theory. That's an alive child leaving 5A route theory which could connect with the Smithman sighting but I don't believe it. If they found that route it's not surprising as she'd used that route down to Baptista supermarket. If they found a route Madeleine hadn't used then it's a totally different ball game.
-
Becaust Kate cannot be wrong. Or confuse something in her memory. Two policemen must be wrong, because she cannot.
Rex and Zarus, who went to the carpark, were given the bath towel. The blanket was given to the Portimao dogs, Numi and Kit, who arrived with their handlers to the Ocean Club at 2:30 a.m. One of the handlers stated:
When they arrived at the scene, they entered the McCann's apartment by the front door, and entered the living room, where there were some PJ officers as well as the MCCann couple. The just talked to some colleagues from the PJ and asked for a piece of clothing that Madeleine had worn or used recently. They were given a pink/orange blanket that the child had been covered with in her bed.
They began searching with the dogs from the main entrance to the apartment, having given the blanket to his dog Numi to smell and begin to search.
The route initially taken was from the front entrance door to the passageway between Blocks 4 and 5, along the corridor and then along the passage that leads past the entrance to the small reception to the resort's swimming pool. After that the whole of the area surrounding the resort was searched.
So, basically, these two dogs covered the last known route of Maddie, from the Tapas area to the apartment. Interesting.
Your attitude implies ‘if her lips are moving she must be lying’. I tend to go with what has been written in Dr McCanns book. A mother would remember handing her daughter’s clothes and comfort blanket over to be used by sniffer dogs.
The files mention all three items so it is not outwith the bounds of probability all three were used in the numerous searches which took place over a period of days.
Then I seem to remember there is a myth attached to the pink blanket so it doesn’t suit some there is provenance of what happened to it.
<<SNIP>> After the officers had been updated about facts relating to the disappearance, they tried to reconstruct the route the girl might have taken with the two tracker dogs. For this purpose the dogs were given a blanket to sniff, provided by the parents, which had been used by Madeleine.
<<SNIP>> In this concrete situation, the objective would be for the dogs to carry out a discontinuous search, in other words, to sniff the girl's clothes and immediately search near to the apartments, checking to see if there was any change in the behaviour of the dogs.
At about 23.00 accompanied by a PJ inspector, the searches were begun. After Rex was given the girl's clothing to sniff, he began to search on the ground floor of block 5 http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GNR_SNIFFER.htm#p13p3517
<<SNIP>> - The GNR team performing the search had in its possession, packed in a plastic bag, a towel supposedly used to clean the missing youngster - Madeleine McCann - furnished by her parents.
- After the conditions for the search are met, the two GNR officers - the leader and the dog handler - gave the scent towel to one of the dogs to smell and led it into Block 5.
http://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/INFORMATION-SERVICE.htm
-
Your attitude implies ‘if her lips are moving she must be lying’. I tend to go with what has been written in Dr McCanns book. A mother would remember handing her daughter’s clothes and comfort blanket over to be used by sniffer dogs.
Have you even read my post? I pointed out the dogs that were given a blanket to sniff. Numi and Kit, the dogs from Portimao. They did not go to the parking lot, they went to the Tapas area. The dogs that went to the parking lot, and were given a towel to sniff, were Rex and Zarus.
-
Martina is on the right track IMO.
First tracking was by Morais and Laçao and 2 dogs early hours 4th
Morais says they used clothing, but Laçao says having requested clothing or other item used by child, a blanket was provided.
IMO it's clear both officers were using one single scent item, and it was the comfort blanket, not clothing. This is further confirmed by KM book.
Laçao states the track led around G5 then past tapas reception.
No crossing the road.
Next tracking was by Fernandes and Silva with 2 dogs late evening 4th
They used a towel.
Track led around G5 then over road and right then to lamppost at carpark.
Next tracking was Fernandes and Silva again, using towel again, predictably giving same track to lamppost at carpark.
SO we have two different tracks.
1. The earliest, using the comfort blanket, goes round G5 and past tapas reception.
2. The later one, using a towel, goes round G5, over road, right, to lamppost at carpark.
(Sources: http://www.mccannfiles.com/id258.html)
-
I already pointed out the likelyhood that a towel would probably have other peoples' scents on it (searcher goes toilet, washes hands, and dries on any towel that happens to be there).
However, on the comfort blanket, IMO the strongest scent would be the child's.
Therefore if any of the the tracks by GNR dogs is of the missing child, it is likely to be the one which used the comfort blanket (Morais and Laçao, approx 2am) IMO.
-
Given the potential multiple use of a towel one has to wonder why it was offered as a source of Madeleine's scent at all.
-
I already pointed out the likelyhood that a towel would probably have other peoples' scents on it (searcher goes toilet, washes hands, and dries on any towel that happens to be there).
However, on the comfort blanket, IMO the strongest scent would be the child's.
Therefore if any of the the tracks by GNR dogs is of the missing child, it is likely to be the one which used the comfort blanket (Morais and Laçao, approx 2am) IMO.
Are you an expert in forensic science ?
Wow.
-
Given the potential use of a towel one has to wonder why itl was offered as a source of Madeleine's scent at all.
Yes the tracks using the towel I now regard as likely to be not the child's.
However I think the comfort blanket, provided that night to GNR by KM, was a very sensible choice.
IMO the track using the comfort blanket is likely to be a track of the child.
However IMO it is likely to be one of these:
(A) Track from 5A to twins kidsclub near Tapas after breakfast on 3rd.
(B) Track from 5A to twins kidsclub near Tapas after lunch on 3rd.
(C) Track from kidsclub tea near Tapas to 5A after tea on 3rd (although this would insult Numi and Kit by accusing them of being unable to tell direction).
-
Yes the tracks using the towel I now regard as likely to be not the child's.
However I think the comfort blanket, provided that night to GNR by KM, was a very sensible choice.
IMO the track using the comfort blanket is likely to be a track of the child.
However IMO it is likely to be one of these:
(A) Track from 5A to twins kidsclub near Tapas after breakfast on 3rd.
(B) Track from 5A to twins kidsclub near Tapas after lunch on 3rd.
(C) Track from kidsclub tea near Tapas to 5A after tea on 3rd (although this would insult Numi and Kit by accusing them of being unable to tell direction).
Maddie was attending the creche (or kidsclub) near the main reception and the Millenium restaurant. The creches near the Tapas were for younger children. The twins were attending there. Now, the children from the Mini Club used to have the high tea in the Tapas, so only your option three is correct.
-
Yes the tracks using the towel I now regard as likely to be not the child's.
However I think the comfort blanket, provided that night to GNR by KM, was a very sensible choice.
IMO the track using the comfort blanket is likely to be a track of the child.
However IMO it is likely to be one of these:
(A) Track from 5A to twins kidsclub near Tapas after breakfast on 3rd.
(B) Track from 5A to twins kidsclub near Tapas after lunch on 3rd.
(C) Track from kidsclub tea near Tapas to 5A after tea on 3rd (although this would insult Numi and Kit by accusing them of being unable to tell direction).
Look at my previous question.
-
Have you even read my post? I pointed out the dogs that were given a blanket to sniff. Numi and Kit, the dogs from Portimao. They did not go to the parking lot, they went to the Tapas area. The dogs that went to the parking lot, and were given a towel to sniff, were Rex and Zarus.
Indeed I read your post starting with your sly dig at Dr McCann - "Becaust Kate cannot be wrong. Or confuse something in her memory. Two policemen must be wrong, because she cannot."
I reiterate - it does not suit some people's agenda that there exists provenance that the officers were given Madeleine's pink blanket for the dogs to sniff.
-
Are you an expert in forensic science ?
Wow.
No, a complete amateur.
IMO anyone walking or being carried (unless completely enclosed) would whatever their status (awake, asleep, or anything else) leave a scent trail which would be detectable by GNR dogs such as Numi and Kit.
-
Indeed I read your post starting with your sly dig at Dr McCann - "Becaust Kate cannot be wrong. Or confuse something in her memory. Two policemen must be wrong, because she cannot."
I reiterate - it does not suit some people's agenda that there exists provenance that the officers were given Madeleine's pink blanket for the dogs to sniff.
Well, it seems you did not read it, as I admitted there the dogs were given the pink blanket to sniff, just not the dogs that went to the parking lot.
-
Well, it seems you did not read it, as I admitted there the dogs were given the pink blanket to sniff, just not the dogs that went to the parking lot.
A bit of a qualified admission.
I am not in the habit of replying to posts I have not read.
However there can be no doubt that the GNR dogs and their handlers carried out sterling work which seems to have been largely ignored.
For example was any further investigation carried out regarding why the dogs reacted in the way they did outside the door of 5J?
The rotting food spilling out of the fridge possibly designed to distract does not alter the fact they only reacted in areas associated with the scent they were following which was Madeleine's.
-
IMO the strongest scent on the comfort blanket was the missing person's.
-
Re 5J, the handlers' opinions are that the dogs were here most likely reacting to finding a very strong scent, not necessarily to finding a scent the same as on the scent object they had been shown.
BTW to check inside, the PJ entered through a window, because they could not locate a key.
-
A bit of a qualified admission.
I am not in the habit of replying to posts I have not read.
However there can be no doubt that the GNR dogs and their handlers carried out sterling work which seems to have been largely ignored.
For example was any further investigation carried out regarding why the dogs reacted in the way they did outside the door of 5J?
The rotting food spilling out of the fridge possibly designed to distract does not alter the fact they only reacted in areas associated with the scent they were following which was Madeleine's.
Indeed.
From the Antonio Silva's statement:
It is certain however, that the dog signalled next to apartments 5J, 5H, and 4G.
5H was the Payne's appartment. According to the statements Maddie did not visit that appartment during the 3rd May. So why did the dog signal at their door?
-
Indeed.
From the Antonio Silva's statement:
It is certain however, that the dog signalled next to apartments 5J, 5H, and 4G.
5H was the Payne's appartment. According to the statements Maddie did not visit that appartment during the 3rd May. So why did the dog signal at their door?
And you know who was in 4G. 5J had an open fridge with rotten vegetables. You would check that out but nothing about the owner of that apartment in the files.
-
Re 5J, the handlers' opinions are that the dogs were here most likely reacting to finding a very strong scent, not necessarily to finding a scent the same as on the scent object they had been shown.
BTW to check inside, the PJ entered through a window, because they could not locate a key.
It was a private apartment, that's why the Ocean Club did not have a key.
-
Indeed.
From the Antonio Silva's statement:
It is certain however, that the dog signalled next to apartments 5J, 5H, and 4G.
5H was the Payne's appartment. According to the statements Maddie did not visit that appartment during the 3rd May. So why did the dog signal at their door?
Perhaps because she had visited it on more than one occasion?
She had no such connection with apartment 5J ... so why did the dogs signal at an apartment there was no reason for Madeleine to be near?
<< SNIP >> She states that this took place on Sunday 29th April, just before she finished her morning work shift (13.30) as she had the afternoon off that day. At about 13.15 she went to help her mother, who was cleaning apartment I of the same block (5) situated on the first floor. She clearly remembers seeing the girl accompanied by her siblings and mother leave their apartment (5 A) and walk to the stairs leading to the floor above. She was very close to them at a distance of about 1 metre, observing their movements for a few moments because she was charmed by them. Madeleine led the way with a plate (perhaps plastic) in her hand bearing a piece of bread. As regards the clothes she was wearing she only remembers a skirt but cannot recall its description. She noted, because she thought them nice, the type of shoes she was wearing, tennis shoes, light in colour she thinks, which had little lights along the soles, which lit up each time she stepped on the ground. Her siblings followed behind her, wearing the same king of shoes and each holding a piece of bread in their hands, their mother followed behind them without holding their hands. She seems to remember that the mother was also carrying a plate. Moments afterwards, perhaps the time it took to close the apartment door, the father came out and also headed to the apartment upstairs. When asked, she does not remember whether the father pulled the door closed or locked it with a key.
After she chatted to her mother about there being many children in the apartments, she had the idea that the family in 5H were friends of Madeleine's family who were staying in 5A.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FATIMA_ESPADA.htm
-
I'll copy my previous post.
Rex and Zarus, who went to the carpark, were given the bath towel. The blanket was given to the Portimao dogs, Numi and Kit, who arrived with their handlers to the Ocean Club at 2:30 a.m. One of the handlers stated:
When they arrived at the scene, they entered the McCann's apartment by the front door, and entered the living room, where there were some PJ officers as well as the MCCann couple. The just talked to some colleagues from the PJ and asked for a piece of clothing that Madeleine had worn or used recently. They were given a pink/orange blanket that the child had been covered with in her bed.
They began searching with the dogs from the main entrance to the apartment, having given the blanket to his dog Numi to smell and begin to search.
The route initially taken was from the front entrance door to the passageway between Blocks 4 and 5, along the corridor and then along the passage that leads past the entrance to the small reception to the resort's swimming pool. After that the whole of the area surrounding the resort was searched.
So, basically, these two dogs covered the last known route of Maddie, from the Tapas area to the apartment. Interesting.
The handler in question is Carlos Manuel Carvalho Lacão. I repeat, Rex and Zarus who traced Maddie's route to the parking lot were given a towel. Not a blanket. The dogs that sniffed blanket went to the Tapas area.
This is not true. All 4 dogs went to the parking area.
The dogs used on the 4th, less than 24 hours after her disappearance are the most significant.
-
It was a private apartment, that's why the Ocean Club did not have a key.
If anyone followed the news closely back in 2007.. there was a news report that Madeleine's scent was traced to an apartment where the visitors left on the night she went missing. I remember people on forums back in 2007 got really interested in this news.. we never heard anything about it later.
-
Re 5J, the handlers' opinions are that the dogs were here most likely reacting to finding a very strong scent, not necessarily to finding a scent the same as on the scent object they had been shown.
BTW to check inside, the PJ entered through a window, because they could not locate a key.
I didn't know that entry to 5J had to be made through a window.
Were the PJ able to unlock the door from the inside to allow the dogs access to the apartment?
-
This is not true. All 4 dogs went to the parking area.
GNR Officer, Carlos Manuel Carvalho Lacão:
When they arrived at the scene, they entered the McCann's apartment by the front door, and entered the living room, where there were some PJ officers as well as the MCCann couple. The just talked to some colleagues from the PJ and asked for a piece of clothing that Madeleine had worn or used recently. They were given a pink/orange blanket that the child had been covered with in her bed.
They began searching with the dogs from the main entrance to the apartment, having given the blanket to his dog Numi to smell and begin to search.
The route initially taken was from the front entrance door to the passageway between Blocks 4 and 5, along the corridor and then along the passage that leads past the entrance to the small reception to the resort's swimming pool.
Are you telling he is lying?
-
Indeed.
From the Antonio Silva's statement:
It is certain however, that the dog signalled next to apartments 5J, 5H, and 4G.
5H was the Payne's appartment. According to the statements Maddie did not visit that appartment during the 3rd May. So why did the dog signal at their door?
See handlers statement. Two bags of rubbish outside 5H door on first floor stairwell.
-
See handlers statement. Two bags of rubbish outside 5H door on first floor stairwell.
In the same way you can dismiss the 5J signal (the rotting meat and veggies in the fridge).
-
GNR Officer, Carlos Manuel Carvalho Lacão:
When they arrived at the scene, they entered the McCann's apartment by the front door, and entered the living room, where there were some PJ officers as well as the MCCann couple. The just talked to some colleagues from the PJ and asked for a piece of clothing that Madeleine had worn or used recently. They were given a pink/orange blanket that the child had been covered with in her bed.
They began searching with the dogs from the main entrance to the apartment, having given the blanket to his dog Numi to smell and begin to search.
The route initially taken was from the front entrance door to the passageway between Blocks 4 and 5, along the corridor and then along the passage that leads past the entrance to the small reception to the resort's swimming pool.
Are you telling he is lying?
The track based on the blanket scent and described by Lacão does not go to the carpark south of block G6.
-
Pages 762 to 765
Witness Statement
Antonio Freitas Silva
Date: 2007.05.09
Location: DIC Portimao
Occupation: 1st Sergeant GNR
Location: GNR-Queluz
The deponent states that:
• He comes to the process in the role of Chief of the GNR Search and Rescue Team. He coordinated all the work carried out by the two sniffer dogs in the Luz zone and the immediate areas relating to the disappearance of the English minor Madeleine McCann from the Ocean Club.
• He remembers that on the 4th of May of the current year, around 23h00, they attempted to tentatively identify and thus reconstruct the path taken by the missing minor. They gave the dogs a Turkish bath towel which was supposedly used by the child in question. This operation was realised by two different dogs.
• That after having given the sniffer dog the towel and next to the residence of the missing girl, more specifically, next to apartment block 5A and 5, the first sniffer dog headed toward the door of that apartment. Immediately afterward, he headed in the direction of block 4, returned around block 5, and came down a road that exists between this block and the leisure area (pools, restaurants, etc). He turned right; in the direction of the aforementioned apartment and headed toward the main road. There, he crossed the street and next to the wall of block 6, turned right, and headed toward the contiguous parking area. More concretely, he headed next to a light post and sniffed the ground around that post. After this, he crossed the street again and headed toward the access zone to the restaurants and pool area, sniffing the door which was closed at that time. He again went to the parking zone, and at that point, lost the scent.
• When carrying out this operation with the second dog, he followed the same rout, took the same direction and headed toward the light post in the parking lot mentioned above. He sniffed the area and at that point appeared to have lost the scent. The only difference was that this dog did not head toward the entrance of the restaurant or the pool area.
• None of the dogs used in this search, after having been given the towel supposedly used by the child, entered into block 5 but went immediately to the street between the apartment and the leisure area. It should be taken into account that the second sniffer dog may have been conditioned by the first sniffer dog. That is to say that in the case of doubt, the second dog may have followed the second of the first.
• Taking into account the aforementioned results, he states that it can be confirmed with a certain degree of certainty that the missing child passed by that location, on that day or on a previous day. This situation can be explained by the nature of the terrain, that is, it is a small space enclosed by walls and as such lingering scents would take longer to dissipate.
• Yesterday (08/05/2007) around 23h45, this search action was repeated but this time the dogs were sent into blocks 5 and 4 of the 'Ocean Club' resort. During this operation, and given the time that had passed combined with the heat, the results that were achieved are very relative given that the dog will confirm all the odours it scents, certainly alerting to those that are most active, namely due to the fact that the apartment was occupied. It is also noted that the dog’s perception in the interior may be affected by noise.
• The initial diligence carried out with first sniffer dog, after having sniffed the towel used in the previous operation, began searching and showing interest in some doors leading to other apartments. He did not show any interest or even approach other apartments. In none of these actions did the dog give the signal to his trainer, Soldado Fernandes. It is certain however, that the dog signalled next to apartments 5J, 5H, and 4G. He showed great interest in sniffing these doors and the immediate areas. Next to door 5H there were two bags of rubbish and the odour may have distracted the dog. Outside 4G was a tray of plates, cutlery and cloth napkins that had apparently been used. This apartment is where the parents of the missing child were staying (at the time). Concerning apartment 5J, the same may have been conditioned by the presence of people in the interior or he could have sniffed an odour that needed to be confirmed.
• He states that after the search inside block 5, and whilst in the exterior, the sniffer dog took the same route on 04/05/07, being the existent road of that apartment and the leisure area (pools and restaurant) and then went to the same parking area. At that point, the scent was lost. This situation may be related to the fact that the biggest concentration of odours are in that area and due to the fact that odours are better preserved near walls and away from major winds. It is certain that upon reaching the main road and turning right is where the biggest concentration of odours exist. This is where the dog lost interest.
• The second dog was taken through the same operation and also showed interest at the door of apartment 5J. This same dog jumped on his hind paws to the parapet of the veranda and raised his head as though in search of an odour. As related above, this interest could have been the result of various factors but it is certain that in this area the scent was intense. In the exterior, the sniffer dog immediately headed to the parking area next to block 6 and there apparently lost the scent.
• I would like to clarify that a search in a bad area, where a more intense odour perceived by the sniffer dog, such as in an urban area due to the large concentration of external odours, make it possible to confuse the dog. In this situation, search activity is very difficult as is the case when some time has passed since the event in question.
• Because he is asked, he states that in relation to this, it is difficult to evaluate precisely the work of the sniffer dog. It is clear that some conditions involved in this action augment the degree of uncertainty. The signalling of the dog may only signify that they are confirming an intense odour in a zone. On the other hand, given the interest of the dog(s) in some of the apartment doorways, this could signify nothing, but could also very well mean that the dog has caught the odour. The dog did not demonstrate to its owner that it had found the scent it was searching for.
• And nothing more was said. Reads, ratifies and signs.
Witness Statement of Pedro Miguel Esteves Fernandes, 09 May 2007
Processo Volume III
Pages 785 to 788
Witness Statement
Pedro Miguel Esteves Fernandes
Date: 2007/05/09
Location: DIC Portimao
Occupation: GNR Officer
Location: GNR-Ajuda
That he comes to the process as witness and states:
• That he is part of the Dog Search Team. In this capacity he serves as a scientific trainer and works with two sniffer dogs. He was asked to bring his team to the Luz zone (Lagos) related to the disappearance of the minor from the Ocean Club.
• On the 4th of May of the current year, around 22h30, he was asked to use the dogs in conjunction with a search that attempted to retrace the steps taken by the missing minor. His role was to use the dogs' skills by allowing them to sniff a towel which had supposedly been used by the minor in question.
• That after the dogs were given this scent from the towel and near apartment 5A of block 5, the first sniffer dog headed to the door of that apartment. Immediately afterward, he turned to block 5, using a circumvented route to block 5, and came to the road between this block and the leisure area of the resort (pools, restaurant, etc), and turned to the left, or around the referred to apartment and headed to the main road. Having reached there, he crossed the road and next to a wall of block 6, crossed the road again, turned right and headed to the parking zone of the resort. More specifically, the dog went next to the light post and began smelling that location. After searching that zone, he again crossed the road and headed toward the entrance to the pool and restaurant area, and smelled the door which was closed at that hour. He turned again to the parking zone and stopped or lost the scent at this point.
• When he effected the same operation with the second dog, in general, this dog took the same route and headed to the light post and showed interest there and ended by losing the scent at this point. It should be stated that the one difference is that this second dog did not head toward the entrance to the restaurant and pool zone. But he does state that the dogs followed a 'scent trail', a signal for the animal who was working. He is certain that they were not conditioned in any direction.
• None of the dogs used in this search action, after having smelled the towel, went into block 5 but headed to the zone which gives access to the road between the apartment and the leisure area. He states it should be noted that the second dog may have been conditioned by the original path taken by the first sniffer dog as he may have smelled the first dog's path taken.
• Taking into account the aforementioned result, he states that it can be confirmed with a certain degree of certainty that the missing minor passed that location, on the day of the events or before that date. This situation can be explained by the configuration/layout of the area. That space is reduced and flanked by walls. This helps to conserve scents that may otherwise be affected by winds, etc. He would like to clarify that these sniffer dogs are more used to effecting this type of work in rural settings where there is not such a great concentration of odours.
• Yesterday (08/05/07) around 23h45, this search action was repeated but was centred on the dogs inside blocks 5 and 4 of the resort. He adds that in this type of operation, given the time that had lapsed, and with the heat that could already be felt, the results obtained may be highly relative given that the dog will confirm all the scents it comes across. It is certain the dog will react to more active scents, namely because the apartment is occupied. Also, any noise perceived by the dog in the apartment may make the dog loose interest.
• Initiating the diligence, the first sniffer dog, after having smelled the towel used in the previous operation, began searching, it being certain that next to the doors of some apartment he demonstrated major interest whilst he did not even approach others. In none of these actions did the dog give him a signal that he had caught the scent of the missing child. It is certain however, that near apartment 5J, 5H and 4G, that the dog showed major interest in smelling the doors and the immediate areas. He states that next to 5H, there were two bags of rubbish which may condition the dog. Just outside apartment 4G was a tray with plates, cutlery and cloth napkins, apparently used. It is certain that this apartment is the one where the missing child's parents were lodged (at the time). In relation to the dog's interest at doorway 5J, the same may have been conditioned by the presence of people inside the apartment.
• After completing the search in the interior of block 5, verandas and apartment access, and whilst in the exterior, the sniffer dog took the same route he had taken on 04/05/07, being the road between that apartment and the leisure area - pool sand restaurant, and headed toward the same parking area. There he lost the scent of the search. This situation may be explained by the fact that the biggest concentration of odours in that location have been preserved and protected from the winds due to the adjoining walls. When this dog got to the main road, he turned right where a large dispersion of odours existed. Here the dog lost the scent.
• The second dog was submitted to the same operation. He too showed interest in the door of apartment 5J. Here he got up on his hind paws to the parapet of the veranda and raised his head in such a way as to catch the odour. As mentioned previously, this interest may be due to various factors but it is certain that at this location the dog scented an intense odour. In the exterior, the sniffer-dog immediately took the first road, heading toward the parking area next to block 6, and there lost the scent.
• He clarifies that a search in a rural area, where a scent is much more intense is immediately noted by the sniffer dog but in an urban area, the great concentration of external odours make it possible to confuse the dog, This makes searching difficult as does the time passed between the event and the search.
• When questioned, he states that in relation to an action of this nature, it is difficult to evaluate precisely the work of the dogs, even though he is well aware what these dogs are capable of. The conditions that surrounded this search made the degree of uncertainty that much greater. The dogs may have signified or confirmed intense odours in that zone, however, they may have also merely have given a confirmation of a scent. They did not demonstrate that they had detected the odour in question.
• And nothing more was said, finds it in conformity, ratifies and signs.
-
In the same way you can dismiss the 5J signal (the rotting meat and veggies in the fridge).
Eddie did check 5H, every square millimetre, every room, and Eddie gave it a complete all-clean report.
Perhaps it would have made sense if NPIA had also selected 5J for Eddie search.
It would IMO have been fairly easy to present the fridge to the to the pt court as justification to obtain the warrant
But JIMO there are other more likely other places I would have sent him to.
-
GNR Officer, Carlos Manuel Carvalho Lacão:
When they arrived at the scene, they entered the McCann's apartment by the front door, and entered the living room, where there were some PJ officers as well as the MCCann couple. The just talked to some colleagues from the PJ and asked for a piece of clothing that Madeleine had worn or used recently. They were given a pink/orange blanket that the child had been covered with in her bed.
They began searching with the dogs from the main entrance to the apartment, having given the blanket to his dog Numi to smell and begin to search.
The route initially taken was from the front entrance door to the passageway between Blocks 4 and 5, along the corridor and then along the passage that leads past the entrance to the small reception to the resort's swimming pool.
Are you telling he is lying?
This officer is not mentioned in the final report
Sargeant Silva – Dog: Timmy
Cabo (Officer) Cortez – Dog: Sacha
Cabo (Officer) Sousa – Dog: Kolly/Cookie
Cabo (Officer) Rosa – Dog: Oscar
Sold. (Soldier) Martins – Dog: Fusco
Sold. (Soldier) Fernandes – Dog: Rex/ Zarus
Please note that in final report two tracker dogs are called Rex and Zarus
After the officers had been updated about facts relating to the disappearance, they tried to reconstruct the route the girl might have taken with the two tracker dogs. For this purpose the dogs were given a blanket to sniff, provided by the parents, which had been used by Madeleine. Beginning to follow the track using Rex, from the door of apartment 5 A (the place where the girl had been sleeping) he would always head in the direction of Block 4, leaving block 5 the dog would turn to the left, pass by a metal access door to a path existing between the apartments blocks to the leisure area (restaurant, pool and playground). Immediately another attempt at reconstruction was made using the dog Zarus, who, in general terms, ended up following the same route as Rex and having the same behaviour.
And two tracker dogs are assigned to the name of officer Fernandes.
In his report officer Fernandes mentiones the car park.
-
...Turkish bath towel ... crossed the street ... parking area ...light post
Thanks Vixte. Basically Silva and Fernandes used the bathtowel, and their dogs tracked across the road Rua Martins to a lamppost at the carpark south of block 6. That was late at night at the end of the 4th May, (and they repeated with same towel and same dogs a few days later and got the same track ).
-
Thanks Vixte. Basically Silva and Fernandes used the bathtowel, and their dogs tracked across the road Rua Martins to a lamppost at the carpark south of block 6. That was late at night at the end of the 4th May, (and they repeated with same towel and same dogs a few days later and got the same track ).
In the final official report the word 'blanket' is used associated with Fernandez- Rex and Zarus
Subject: Report of Searches Related to the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann
Annex B – Report on the Sniffer Dog Search and Rescue Team
I. Methods used
The sniffer dog search and rescue team of the GNR was sent to Vila da Luz in the attempt of locating Madeleine McCann, aged four, of British nationality, who disappeared on the night of 3rd May, from apartment 5 A, Block 5 of the OC resort, the team was composed as follows:
Sargeant Silva – Dog: Timmy
Cabo (Officer) Cortez – Dog: Sacha
Cabo (Officer) Sousa – Dog: Kolly/Cookie
Cabo (Officer) Rosa – Dog: Oscar
Sold. (Soldier) Martins – Dog: Fusco
Sold. (Soldier) Fernandes – Dog: Rex/ Zarus
II Description of action
After the first three members of the team arrived at the scene, the officers gathered some information from the girl's parents about the places they tended to frequent with the children during their stay in Praia da Luz up until now, the parents replied that the only areas that their daughter would frequent since their arrival, was Praia da Luz beach, always accompanied by babysitters and resort pool area, where there was also a playground.
After this, at about 08h00 the three search and rescue sniffer dog teams (Silva with Timmy, Cortez with Sacha and Sousa with Kolly and Cookie) who had arrived at the site, began searching, leaving the resort in the direction of the beach.
During the entire morning, searches were made of the beach and rocks, from Rocha Negra to the area of Ponta da Gaviota (an approximate area of 2 km). During the morning searches were also made of the areas surrounding Praia da Luz, with a radius of about 300 metres, as well as some abandoned houses, wells and plots of land inside Praia da Luz.
After an evaluation of the situation in the field, it was decided to request two more search and rescue sniffer dogs from the GNR Queluz station, given the extent of the terrain to be searched, whilst the hypothesis that the girl could have left the apartment on foot was not discarded.
During the afternoon of 4th May, more searches were carried out around Vila da Luz and were extended to a radius of approximately 600 metres, including the surroundings of the EN125 in the stretch closed to Praia da Luz.
At about 23h00 the extra teams that had been requested for reinforcement arrived (Officer Rosa with Oscar and Officer Martins with Fusco, both from the search and rescue unit and Officer Fernandes with Rex and Zarus from the tracking team).
After the officers had been updated about facts relating to the disappearance, they tried to reconstruct the route the girl might have taken with the two tracker dogs. For this purpose the dogs were given a blanket to sniff, provided by the parents, which had been used by Madeleine.
Beginning to follow the track using Rex, from the door of apartment 5 A (the place where the girl had been sleeping) he would always head in the direction of Block 4, leaving block 5 the dog would turn to the left, pass by a metal access door to a path existing between the apartments blocks to the leisure area (restaurant, pool and playground). Immediately another attempt at reconstruction was made using the dog Zarus, who, in general terms, ended up following the same route as Rex and having the same behaviour.
It is important to state that this tracking work was carried out in an urban area and more than 24 hours after the girl's disappearance and numerous persons had passed along the path the dogs were tracking. It should also be stated that the path the dogs followed within the resort was practically totally surrounded by walls and the concentration of odours was stronger as they were protected from the wind. The searches finished at about 01h30.
On 5th May at about 08h00 after a briefing, two teams consisting of 3 dogs each accompanied by officers from Portimao, again carried out searches in the whole of the Vila da Luz area, with an approximate radius of 2 kilometres, paying special attention to the rocky areas, abandoned houses, wells, drains, road verges etc..including plots of land within Praia da Luz.
During part of the afternoon, searches were carried out in the Turiscampo camping site situated next to Espiche on the EN125 and in the Orbitur camping site next to Vila da Luz. This search operation had the objective of checking all the bungalows whose occupants had left on the day of the disappearance or on the following day as well as the adjacent areas.
During the day the searches were extended using the method of searching in file, accompanied by officers from Portimao, from the Praia da Luz area following the rocks up to Ponta da Cama da Vaca, taking in all of the northern zone to the EN125 as well as the village of Almadena, the Vale Verde zone and Quatro Estradas, some of the areas had already been searched more than once.
At about 22h00 all the vehicles parked in Vila da Luz parking spaced were checked.
On 6th May at about 08h00 and after another briefing from the Operational Command Post, it was decided that on that day they would again search all the plots of land with thick undergrowth within Praia da Luz, but that this time the search sections were divided amongst the teams. For this purpose the same teams of three dogs together with officers from Portimao who had been selected to help using the method of searching in file, carried out searches in all abandoned buildings, wells, rocks, verges of the EN125 and land surrounding Praia da Luz, in some cases reaching distances of 2 km.
On 7th May the same searches were continued, being extended to to the entire northern part of Almadena to the site of Espojeiro and the verges of the EN125 until the Boi valley.
At about 19h00 the undersigned officer, accompanied by the Commander, Officer Silva, took part in a meetings with the PJ Directorate, being asked by the PJ about the viability of giving the girl’s clothes to the dogs for the dogs to sniff again, and if by means of the odour inhaled, they would be able to mark an identical odour in one of the resort’s apartments even though its door was closed.
With regard to this task, Officer Silva referred to the fact that the time that had passed would be a crucial condition for the dogs' work in obtaining results and that the entirety of the human odours existing in the apartments and access paths could make the dogs' searches very difficult. However, in spite of not being a normal situation for tracking, it could be attempted, whilst the operation should be carried out as quickly as possible and not directed towards one but to all the apartments in the resort, it being appropriate for the handler not to know which apartment was chosen, so as not the be conditioned.
In this concrete situation, the objective would be for the dogs to carry out a discontinuous search, in other words, to sniff the girl’s clothes and immediately search near to the apartments, checking to see if there was any change in the behaviour of the dogs.
At about 23h00 accompanied by a PJ inspector, the searches were begun. After Rex was given the girl's clothing to sniff, he began to search on the ground floor of block 5 and when he passed the door of apartment 5A (the place the girl had disappeared from) according to his handler, officer Fernandes, the dog altered its behaviour, sniffing with greater intensity than he had done before. Apartment 5J of the same block was also checked as the dog had been more agitated than before as if there were a very strong strange odour there. It was stated that this apartment had been unoccupied for some time. Afterwards, the same kind of search was carried out using the dog Zarus which in general terms showed the same behaviour in the same places as Rex had done.
It was only when all the searches of the apartments in blocks 4 and 5 were complete, that the behaviour described above was registered. It is certain that this kind of work does not correspond to the area that these dogs were trained in, but given that these types of dogs manage to discriminate a specific odour from others, although it could be a remote possibility that they related the odour of the missing girl with a possible location where she could have been.
On 8th May during the morning four teams returned to search all the areas around Vila, following some indications from local people who had frequently gone to the GNR Command post saying they had seen something suspicious related to the disappearance but no sign of her presence was ever found.
During the afternoon searches along the verges of the EN125 were continued from Boi valley to Figueira and the whole northern part of Budens.
On the following days the strategy adopted was to continue to extend the perimeter of the searches to the villages of Barao de S Miguel and Burgau, Barao de S Joao, Bensafrim and Salema. Searches were carried out in all of these locations, as well as adjacent land, vegetation, abandoned houses, wells and main roads.
On 10th May at about 20h10, upon the request of the PJ, searches were carried out in all of the apartments belonging to blocks 4 and 5 of the OC, two tracker dogs and two search and rescue dogs being used for this operation, adopting the same methods as those used on 7th May, just that this time the apartments were all open and searched one by one, being accompanied by a representative from the resort, who had the keys to all the apartments (apart from those not under her administration) and also with the objective of helping with the searches. The collaboration of all the guests occupying the apartments at that time was requested for this purpose and those apartments that were found to be empty were opened by the administrator.
All the apartments were searched by the dogs and when they arrived at apartment 5J they began to sniff with intensity at the entrance door. During this behaviour it was noted by the PJ officers that there must be some unusual odour, but which with all certainty did not have anything to do with the odour being searched for, but there must have been something strange inside.
After entering the apartment, it was observed that the dour came from close to the fridge, which was open and contained some rotting meat and vegetables.
During the searches carried out in the apartments no sign of the girl was found by the dogs.
On 11th May in the morning, the team went to Odiaxere to visit a forest near the Boavista golf course. The whole forest was searched using the in file method, including some abandoned houses, wells and rail track.
After lunch the team was told that the searches were concluded but that their presence in Praia da Luz would continue to be necessary according to the requirements of the PJ for any other situations that might occur.
On 15th May three search and rescue dogs returned to Lisbon (Officer Cortes with Sacha, Officer Rosa with Oscar and Officer Martins with Fusco) considering that there was no longer any need for them.
The other dogs and their handlers remained on site until 18th May when at about 19h00 they returned to Cino/EPG as their presence was no longer require in Praia da Luz, although it was determined that if their use were required in the future, they would return.
Signed
30 November 2007
Operation Commander
Major Sequeira
-
This officer is not mentioned in the final report
Sargeant Silva – Dog: Timmy
Cabo (Officer) Cortez – Dog: Sacha
Cabo (Officer) Sousa – Dog: Kolly/Cookie
Cabo (Officer) Rosa – Dog: Oscar
Sold. (Soldier) Martins – Dog: Fusco
Sold. (Soldier) Fernandes – Dog: Rex/ Zarus
Please note that in final report two tracker dogs are called Rex and Zarus
And two tracker dogs are assigned to the name of officer Fernandes.
In his report officer Fernandes mentiones the car park.
These dogs you write above were the SAR dogs from the Queluz GNR school, you have it written black on white in the Dogs report section. Numi and Kit, two german shepherds that were given the blanket to sniff and traced Maddie's route to the Tapas area were two Portimao patrol sniffer dogs, handled by the officer Carlos Manuel Carvalho Lacão and the officer Armando Augusto Morais.
The report deals in detail only with searches by the Queluz SAR dogs.
-
Yes this confused me for a while. But by studying the statements of Laçao and A.F.Silva in detail, IMO A.F.Silva is the "Chief of the GNR Search and Rescue Team", and he was supervising the diligence in which the handler Laçao used first one of his dogs, then next his other dog. Laçao's dogs are IMO Rex and Zarus. A.F.Silva is the Chief. (That leaves to be explained why there is mention of a handler Silva who has a dog Timmy - IMO this is likely to be a different Silva, not the chief A.F Silva).
No, it's the same person, sergeant Antonio Freitas Silva.
-
Yes this confused me for a while. But by studying the statements of Laçao and A.F.Silva in detail, IMO A.F.Silva is the "Chief of the GNR Search and Rescue Team", and he was supervising the diligence in which the handler Laçao used first one of his dogs, then next his other dog. Laçao's dogs are IMO Rex and Zarus. A.F.Silva is the Chief. (That leaves to be explained why there is mention of a handler Silva who has a dog Timmy - IMO this is likely to be a different Silva, not the chief A.F Silva).
Major Sequeira in his last and final report mentions the blanket in association with dogs Rex and Zarus which are two tracker dogs brought in and their handler is Fernandes,
In his report ( SEE FERNANDES STATEMENT) he says the Rex and Zarus went to the car park.
-
Major Sequeira in his last and final report mentions the blanket in association with dogs Rex and Zarus which are two tracker dogs brought in and their handler is Fernandes,
In his report ( SEE FERNANDES STATEMENT) he says the Rex and Zarus went to the car park.
Sequeira's report was written in November. five months after the search during whith major hadn't been present at the scene. The individual statements of Antonio Freitas Silva and Pedro Miguel Fernandes, both mentioning the towel, described as turkish bath towel, were written 9th May. Five days after the search, by the people who personally saw and used the item they obtained from the McCanns.
-
Sequeira's report was written in November. five months after the search during whith major hadn't been present at the scene. The individual statements of Antonio Freitas Silva and Pedro Miguel Fernandes, both mentioning the towel, described as turkish bath towel, were written 9th May. Five days after the search, by the people who personally saw and used the item they obtained from the McCanns.
And who is to say that what they call 'towel' is actually a blanket?
-
In the final official report the word 'blanket' is used associated with Fernandez- Rex and Zarus ...
Well-spotted Vixte and yes you are correct.
However both the handler Fernandes, and A.F.Silva (the Chief of the GNR Search and Rescue Team, who was supervising Fernandes) state that they used a towel IIRC.
I am wondering if the report was getting mixed up? My instinct is to go by the primary sources which are the statements of the two GNR themselves who were doing the tracking, but I might be wrong?
-
And who is to say that what they call 'towel' is actually a blanket?
Stretching the facts begins...
-
there is a confusion with the sniffer dogs. may iam wrong but the important thing is that they tried to reconstruct the route of the child using the tracker dogs namely zarus and rex. Dogs used the first day ( Numi and...i dont remember )were patrol dogs. They used them to find the child not to reconstrct her route. Both tracker dogs directed to the parkin area and it happened twice ( on 4/5 and 8/5)
what i find odd is that while the hadlers of tracker dogs both silva and fernandes state that a towel was given to them in GNR sniffer dogs report signed by operation commander Sequida ( iam not sure for his name) is reported the blanket ( 4/5) and clothes of the child for the search on 8/5
-
That there were two different scent sources can be proven as follows IMO:
1. KM in her book states she gave police the small pink comfort blanket for use as a scent source
2. At least one handler report states that a turkish bath towel was used as a source.
So two scent sources IMO because it is impossible to mistake a very small pink blanket for a turkish bath towel.
IMO the comfort blanket was used by Lacao and Morais early hours of 4th.
IMO the turkish bath towel was used by Silva and Fernandes at end of 4th and again at end of 8th.
IMO it is likely that the comfort blanket was returned to KM after the Lacao/Morais tracking and taken to 4G on 4th and not used by the two Silva/Fernandes trackings.
-
ive just seen that brietta has already sent the report of sequeira
-
Well-spotted Vixte and yes you are correct.
However both the handler Fernandes, and A.F.Silva (the Chief of the GNR Search and Rescue Team, who was supervising Fernandes) state that they used a towel IIRC.
I am wondering if the report was getting mixed up? My instinct is to go by the primary sources which are the statements of the two GNR themselves who were doing the tracking, but I might be wrong?
I think it is all the same thing. The blanket maybe looked like a towel. Maybe it was even a towel-like.
-
I think it is all the same thing. The blanket maybe looked like a towel. Maybe it was even a towel-like.
Yes, a comforter blanket looking like a bath towel. Totally probable. Like totally.
-
This photo is taken in daylight 4th May.
So photois after the Morais/Lacao blanket tracking but before the Silva/Fernandes bath towel tracking.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id121.html
scroll down to photo captioned "...move items to new apartment"
Colours get distorted in photos, is that a grey fleece, or the pink blanket?
-
This photo is taken in daylight 4th May.
So photois after the Morais/Lacao blanket tracking but before the Silva/Fernandes bath towel tracking.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id121.html
scroll down to photo captioned "...move items to new apartment"
Colours get distorted in photos, is that a grey fleece, or the pink blanket?
This would be a speculaion
-
This photo is taken in daylight 4th May.
So photois after the Morais/Lacao blanket tracking but before the Silva/Fernandes bath towel tracking.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id121.html
scroll down to photo captioned "...move items to new apartment"
Colours get distorted in photos, is that a grey fleece, or the pink blanket?
Making comparison with the photograph above entitled 'Gerry and Kate make their way to the police station on the morning of 04 May 2007', it can be noted that the bag being carried by Dr G McCann appears to be the same bag now carried by his wife who is still wearing the hooded top worn in the 'move items' photograph.
Dr G McCann is wearing a fleece zipped up to his neck in the photograph 'Gerry and Kate make their way to the police station on the morning of 04 May 2007'. In the 'move items' photograph he is wearing a green polo shirt and appears to be carrying that jacket.
Cuddle Cat cannot be seen in the 'Gerry and Kate make their way to the police station on the morning of 04 May 2007' but it is known that in the early days Dr McCann carried her everywhere so it can be safely assumed that she was carrying CC then as she is in the 'move items' photo.
The Drs McCann appear to be carrying only what they had when they left to go to the police station.
IMO that makes the balance of probability that Dr G McCann is carrying his jacket as neither are carrying anything they weren't in the morning and the probability is that they did not return to 5A but went immediately to the other apartment on their return.
-
Thanks Brietta, I was not sure if that is pink blanket or grey fleece.
IMO the blanket was a precious personal item, and I am guessing it would have been returned after Morais and Laçao showed it to their dogs at about 2AM or 2:30AM.
-
Well-spotted Vixte and yes you are correct.
However both the handler Fernandes, and A.F.Silva (the Chief of the GNR Search and Rescue Team, who was supervising Fernandes) state that they used a towel IIRC.
I am wondering if the report was getting mixed up? My instinct is to go by the primary sources which are the statements of the two GNR themselves who were doing the tracking, but I might be wrong?
They wanted clothes or something else with her smell on it. Unless she had a towel that she used exclusively, a towel would have had confusing smells, I would have thought. They could presumably have thought that a soft fleece blanket was a child's towel or simply remembered that they were given a square / oblong-shaped article that wasn't clothing when they were writing up the report. What it actually was wasn't of importance to them.
-
I'm aware that some described being given a towel, but others refer to the blanket. The legal summary calls it a "blanket/towel".
At 08.00 the GNR Search and Rescue sniffer dog team came into action, searches were begun from the resort in the direction of the beach, covering a 2 km area; in Praia da Luz 300m radius searches were made as well searches of abandoned houses, wells and waste land, the radius subsequently being expanded to 600m including the verges of the EN 125 motorway.
Subsequently an attempt was made to reconstruct the route taken by Madeleine by giving the dogs a blanket/towel used by her, but the results were not significant, given that the dogs are more trained for use in rural areas rather than urban or populated areas, the existence of more odours in the air making it impossible for the tracker dog to identify/locate the “target smell”.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
05-Processos Vol V Pages 1335-1337
05_VOLUME_Va_Page_1335
05_VOLUME_Va_Page_1336
05_VOLUME_Va_Page_1337
Witness Statement
Date: 2007-05-16
Carlos Manuel Carvalho Lacão
Occupation: GNR Officer
He has been a GNR officer since 1988. He holds the post of soldier and currently works in the Portimao Territorial Group, working within the forensics service.
On 4th May he was called at about 01.15 when he was asleep at home, requesting him to appear at the Lagos GNR post as a small girl had disappeared. After arriving at the GNR post with his colleagues Morais and two dogs (Numi and Kit), German Shepherd dogs, which made up the search team, they immediately left for P da L. They arrived at about 02.30.
When they arrived at the scene, they entered the McCann's apartment by the front door, and entered the living room, where there were some PJ officers as well as the MCCann couple. The just talked to some colleagues from the PJ and asked for a piece of clothing that Madeleine had worn or used recently. They were given a pink/orange blanket that the child had been covered with in her bed.
They began searching with the dogs from the main entrance to the apartment, having given the blanket to his dog Numi to smell and begin to search.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CARLOS-LACAO.htm
At about 23.00 the extra teams that had been requested for reinforcement arrived (Officer Rosa with Oscar and Officer Martins with Fusco, both from the search and rescue unit and Officer Fernandes with Rex and Zarus from the tracking team).
After the officers had been updated about facts relating to the disappearance, they tried to reconstruct the route the girl might have taken with the two tracker dogs. For this purpose the dogs were given a blanket to sniff, provided by the parents, which had been used by Madeleine.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GNR_SNIFFER.htm
-
Witness Statement of Antonio Freitas Silva
Date: 2007.05.09
Location: DIC Portimao
Occupation: 1st Sergeant GNR
Location: GNR-Queluz
The deponent states that:
- He comes to the process in the role of Chief of the GNR Search and Rescue Team. He coordinated all the work carried out by the two sniffer dogs in the Luz zone and the immediate areas relating to the disappearance of the English minor Madeleine McCann from the Ocean Club.
- He remembers that on the 4th of May of the current year, around 23H00, they attempted to tentatively identify and thus reconstruct the path taken by the missing minor. They gave the dogs a Turkish bath towel which was supposedly used by the child in question. This operation was realised by two different dogs.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ANTONIO_SILVA.htm
Are there any other references to a towel, or just Silva?
I just noticed that it's a witness statement, not a report.
Service Information 9 May 2007
To Dr G Amaral
From Vitor Matos, Chief Inspector
Search by GNR dog team
- The GNR team performing the search had in its possession, packed in a plastic bag, a towel supposedly used to clean the missing youngster - Madeleine McCann - furnished by her parents.
- After the conditions for the search are met, the two GNR officers - the leader and the dog handler - gave the scent towel to one of the dogs to smell and led it into Block 5.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/INFORMATION-SERVICE.htm
Matos, as Chief Inspector, would be from the PJ. There's no indication that he actually saw what was handed to the handlers and may have copied "towel" from Silva's statement.
Alternatively, the dogs were given the blanket and a towel.
-
Lação says it was a blanket and he gave it to his dog Numi.
-
"... the leader and the dog handler ..."
This clearly refers to A.F. Silva, who was the leader (Chief of the GNR Search and Rescue Team), and Fernandes, who was the handler of the two dogs. Careful reading of their statements confirms this.
-
Lação says it was a blanket and he gave it to his dog Numi.
Yes, and this is further confirmed by KM, who states she gave police the comfort blanket for use as a scent source, and that this was while she was still in the apartment after PJ arrival. This matches the time that Morais and Lação arrived.
-
How can the two items possibly be confused? One has been described as a pink blanket,the other as an 'aztec'(I assume patterned) turkish bath towel.
-
IMO the blanket was a relible scent source
So Numi and Kit would be discerning between many trails of that one scent - dozens of overlapping trails of different ages (from less than a day to five days) and of both directions.
Map of the outdoor trails of this scent available to Numi and Kit to select from
-
(A) Track from 5A to twins kidsclub near Tapas after breakfast on 3rd.
(B) Track from 5A to twins kidsclub near Tapas after lunch on 3rd.
(C) Track from kidsclub tea near Tapas to 5A after tea on 3rd (although this would insult Numi and Kit by accusing them of being unable to tell direction).
Maddie was attending the creche (or kidsclub) near the main reception and the Millenium restaurant.
The creches near the Tapas were for younger children. The twins were attending there. Now, the children from the Mini Club used to have the high tea in the Tapas, so only your option three is correct.
Her kidsclub was above main reception, but nowhere near Millennium restaurant.
On 3rd after breakfast, first she walked with her family to to the twins kidsclub near Tapas to drop off the twins.
On 3rd after lunch, first she walked with her family to to the twins kidsclub near Tapas to drop off the twins.
-
Her kidsclub was above main reception, but nowhere near Millennium restaurant.
On 3rd after breakfast, first she walked with her family to to the twins kidsclub near Tapas to drop off the twins.
On 3rd after lunch, first she walked with her family to to the twins kidsclub near Tapas to drop off the twins.
Okay, I stand corrected. Though after lunch Maddie first went into the play area near the Tapas, and then to drop of the twins. It doesn't make a big difference anyway. And I think the most probable explanation is that the dogs took the route because the scent there was the freshest, left by Maddie (or Amelie if it was her blanket) after the high tea.
The question is why there was no trail left by Maddie carried by the abductor. He didn't carry her to the Tapas, right?
-
Okay, I stand corrected. Though after lunch Maddie first went into the play area near the Tapas, and then to drop of the twins. It doesn't make a big difference anyway. And I think the most probable explanation is that the dogs took the route because the scent there was the freshest, left by Maddie (or Amelie if it was her blanket) after the high tea.
The question is why there was no trail left by Maddie carried by the abductor. He didn't carry her to the Tapas, right?
In the same manner, you could also question the absence of a trail from the complex if Kate or Gerry had moved the corpse during the previous evening.
-
In the same manner, you could also question the absence of a trail from the complex if Kate or Gerry had moved the corpse during the previous evening.
The bodily smell changes after death when the decomposition begins. I don't think that the dogs tracing the living Maddie would also trace the route of her body.
-
The bodily smell changes after death when the decomposition begins. I don't think that the dogs tracing the living Maddie would also trace the route of her body.
I totally agree with that. But that really makes all the tracker dogs findings irrelevant, because we don't know if she was dead or alive when she left 5a. We are told she had used all the routes indicated. I find it a little strange they didn't track her scent down to the beach, though, because she had been on the sailing trip on the 3rd. It does make you question whether or not it was actually Madeleine's scent the dogs were following.
-
... The question is why there was no trail left by Maddie carried by the abductor. He didn't carry her to the Tapas, right?
If the important last exit was untrackable by GNR dogs, then that exit was not by own feet and not by open carrying.
-
If the important last exit was untrackable by GNR dogs, then that exit was not by own feet and not by open carrying.
And how do you know this for sure?
Do you know it for sure or is it some kind of a unproven theory? As any other theory anyone else has?
How do you know the parking area wasn't the last place Madeleine was in in PDL?
-
And how do you know this for sure?
Do you know it for sure or is it some kind of a unproven theory? As any other theory anyone else has?
How do you know the parking area wasn't the last place Madeleine was in in PDL?
I looked into what it is that tracker dogs are smelling while they follow a trail, and as a complete amateur I think that walking or openly carried would be likely to leave a GNR-dog-trackable trail still good for the first (blanket) GNR tracking in early hours of 4th, regardless of other factors, but again that is... (see signature)
-
An amateur view based on reading books:
A human sheds skin cells at a rate of hundreds per second.
Attached to these skin cells are body secretions, and active bacteria.
These 3 components present a unique profile for each individual.
So wherever a human goes these identifying particles are continuously shed and are deposited in the surrounding environment. We can't smell them, dogs can.
-
Okay, I stand corrected. Though after lunch Maddie first went into the play area near the Tapas, and then to drop of the twins. It doesn't make a big difference anyway. And I think the most probable explanation is that the dogs took the route because the scent there was the freshest, left by Maddie (or Amelie if it was her blanket) after the high tea.
The question is why there was no trail left by Maddie carried by the abductor. He didn't carry her to the Tapas, right?
When someone is carried they leave an airborne scent which is easily dissipated and especially so if it is windy. It is not surprising therefore that the GNR dogs failed to follow her on the night she disappeared.
The failure of the sniffer dogs to track her last movement is also indicative that she never walked out of that apartment barefoot and most definitely did not use the rear patio door exit.
-
When someone is carried they leave an airborne scent which is easily dissipated and especially so if it is windy...
On the other hand, wind might increase the rate at which skin cells are shed and deposited onto the surrounding environment? A human sheds hundreds of skin particles per second.
-
... The failure of the sniffer dogs to track her last movement is also indicative that she never walked out of that apartment barefoot ...
Dogs regularly track people who are wearing shoes.
I found a research experiment where the target people were dressed in full-body protective suits designed to allow no scent through, and the dogs were given the task of tracking them - and surprisingly yes the dogs succeeded.
-
Tracker dogs can determine the direction of a scent trail
There are three phases, which complete the process of tracking:
1. Searching Phase
This is the phase in which dogs attempt to find a track. They move quickly, and take short, quick sniffs.
2. Deciding Phase
Once the dog has found the track, they move more slowly and take longer sniffs to determine the direction of the track. This is usually the most difficult phase for the dog.
3. Tracking phase
After determining the direction, dogs follow the track by sniffing at a uniform pace, and moving at a speed similar to that of the searching.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tracking_%28dog%29
-
A research study indicating that tracker dogs are very good at working out the direction of a scent trail
Abstract: Dogs have the ability to determine the direction of an odour trail left by a human. This study examined how much olfactory information from this trail is required by dogs to determine direction. Six dogs, able to determine direction, were tested on a 21 footstep trail laid on 21 individual carpet squares, one footstep per square, by the same individual wearing the same shoes. Dogs brought in at right-angles to the trail at its centre were able to correctly determine direction better than chance (P < 0.025). Dogs were unable to determine direction when the order of the footsteps was randomized by rearranging the order of the carpet squares. When the individual odour cue was removed, but ground disturbance left, dogs were unable to determine direction, indicating that it was the odour of the individual that was used to determine direction. In the final experiment the number of footsteps made available to the dog was reduced from 21 to 11 and then 9, 7, 5 and finally 3. Dogs were able to determine direction from 5 footsteps but not 3. It was calculated that it takes ∼1–2 s for the odour information in footsteps to change to provide discernible information that can be used by dogs to determine direction. The process by which dogs may determine direction from odour cues is discussed.
http://chemse.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/4/291.full
-
So, you think it was not Madeleine whose scent was followed to the car park?
And why: because you think someone else touched Madeleine's towel or whatever it was given to the dogs?
Can we conclude this with 100% accuracy? 50%? How many percent this would be truly accurate?
I mean if we are taking hear says as true statements, then we conclude the dogs followed someone else's trail to the car park? Whose trail was this? Has Mr Amaral found it out? It was one of his most significant clues!
So, if not Madeleine's whose trail was this? Matthew Odlfield's? Didn't he in his statement claim he went this was to inform the main reception? Who else? Who went to that car park and then went away? Whose car was parked there?
-
So, you think it was not Madeleine whose scent was followed to the car park?
I don't know whose scent it was but, well.. The abductor parking his car directly under the streetlamp, in the place clearly and perfectly visible from the Ocean Club entrance used by the parents and their friends, and then parading to his perfectly lit and perfecty visible car with the child in his arms - that sounds absurd.
-
I don't know whose scent it was but, well.. The abductor parking his car directly under the streetlamp, in the place clearly and perfectly visible from the Ocean Club entrance used by the parents and their friends, and then parading to his perfectly lit and perfecty visible car with the child in his arms - that sounds absurd.
I've seen a theory on this long time ago on one of the forums, while [ censored word] and pros were still together on the same forum.
That was a brilliant poster, pity I cannot remember the name.
So the theory was: A helper who works in OC and has a key goes into the apartment using the key, opens the window and passes Madeleine through the window. Then hands in pockets and whistling leaves the apartment and goes away by a car, parked next to the reception. The suggestion was that this person touched Madeleine and the towel.
-
So, you think it was not Madeleine whose scent was followed to the car park?
And why: because you think someone else touched Madeleine's towel or whatever it was given to the dogs?
Can we conclude this with 100% accuracy? 50%? How many percent this would be truly accurate?
I mean if we are taking hear says as true statements, then we conclude the dogs followed someone else's trail to the car park? Whose trail was this? Has Mr Amaral found it out? It was one of his most significant clues!
So, if not Madeleine's whose trail was this? Matthew Odlfield's? Didn't he in his statement claim he went this was to inform the main reception? Who else? Who went to that car park and then went away? Whose car was parked there?
I don't know what is the correct interpretation of the GNR dogs trails.
One deduction I have made is-
Looking at the trails using the towel (late 4th and late 8th).
Let's give the person whose scent was dominant on the towel, and who the dogs were therefore tracking, the name X (this might be the child or might be someone else).
The towel trails on late 4th and late 8th are the same.
Therefore person X created a scent trail from the front door to the lamppost sometime before late 4th.
But here is the deduction: person X created absolutely no further scent trail, from the front door to anywhere, between late 4th and late 8th.
-
I've seen a theory on this long time ago on one of the forums, while [banned word] and [banned word] were still together on the same forum.
That was a brilliant poster, pity I cannot remember the name.
So the theory was: A helper who works in OC and has a key goes into the apartment using the key, opens the window and passes Madeleine through the window. Then hands in pockets and whistling leaves the apartment and goes away by a car, parked next to the reception. The suggestion was that this person touched Madeleine and the towel.
Like he couldn't leave with Maddie through the door... No, he just had to choose the way that would look obviously suspicious in the eyes of any accidental witness. And would require sguezing between the cots.
Silvia Batista, Maintenance Services Director:
She recalls that the beds which were in the middle of the room and used by the babies
were aligned and therefore found it strange that someone had taken Madeleine from the bed where she would be sleeping and had gone to the window because there was no space to pass.
-
What we have is Madeleine's scent being tracked by the GNR dogs along routes we have been told she travelled durinng the week.
The search & rescue dogs also followed similar routes, although we are unsure whether it was Madeleine's scent they were tracking.
What the dogs haven't given us is a trail to somewhere that Madeleine was not known to have passed through.
It is crucial to know who gave the Atec towel to the search & rescue handlers - omitted from both the handlers' statements & the GNR final report. Otherwise, the dogs' evidence is worthless.
-
I've seen a theory on this long time ago on one of the forums, while [banned word] and [banned word] were still together on the same forum.
That was a brilliant poster, pity I cannot remember the name.
So the theory was: A helper who works in OC and has a key goes into the apartment using the key, opens the window and passes Madeleine through the window. Then hands in pockets and whistling leaves the apartment and goes away by a car, parked next to the reception. The suggestion was that this person touched Madeleine and the towel.
Interesting and plausible.
I have been convinced since first reading about the trail followed by the GNR dogs that they were on to something. However I have never read anywhere that it was followed up in any way with an investigation into why the dogs lost the trail in exactly the same place which was suggestive of a parked vehicle.
Surely the logical thing to do would have been to use publicity to find out if residents or tourists still in the resort could identify any vehicle parked there.
Might have been a long shot, but who is to say it might not have paid dividends.
-
I don't know what is the correct interpretation of the GNR dogs trails.
One deduction I have made is-
Looking at the trails using the towel (late 4th and late 8th).
Let's give the person whose scent was dominant on the towel, and who the dogs were therefore tracking, the name X (this might be the child or might be someone else).
The towel trails on late 4th and late 8th are the same.
Therefore person X created a scent trail from the front door to the lamppost sometime before late 4th.
But here is the deduction: person X created absolutely no further scent trail, from the front door to anywhere, between late 4th and late 8th.
This was discussed a lot too.. I've seen this theory too.. Whoever's scent this was, the person was no longer near OC because the dogs would find this person. And the person left the area on say 3rd or 4th and never came back. It's only Madeleine? And Mrs Fenn's niece. IMO that is why she was questioned in that way..
First days it was also reported that one of the residents of one of the apartments where the dogs indicated left the area that night but I've never seen anything about that in the files and I was looking for that. So, this was probably the journalist's made up story.
PJ and SY would know through the phone records if anyone like this exists.
-
I've seen a theory on this long time ago on one of the forums, while [banned word] and [banned word] were still together on the same forum.
That was a brilliant poster, pity I cannot remember the name.
So the theory was: A helper who works in OC and has a key goes into the apartment using the key, opens the window and passes Madeleine through the window. Then hands in pockets and whistling leaves the apartment and goes away by a car, parked next to the reception. The suggestion was that this person touched Madeleine and the towel.
A human loses about 40,000 skin cells per minute, into the air, many of which get deposited on nearby surfaces, and these (with associated secretions and bacteria) are what I think the GNR dogs were trailing.
Give the dog an item with person X's scent on - and the dog will follow the 1000s of skin cells deposited along the route X took.
If person Y had touched person X, then walked away via some route (not taking X), the dog would not track that route, because Y would not be depositing the required thousands of X's skin cells.
-
Surely the logical thing to do would have been to use publicity to find out if residents or tourists still in the resort could identify any vehicle parked there.
Might have been a long shot, but who is to say it might not have paid dividends.
Even back in 2007 people on forums were asking this.. after so much fuss about it on forums I thought the PJ would have done it.
That time the theory worked because it was thought that the person who took Madeleine was the Tannerman.
If someone lifted Madeleine from her bed and took her away her head would be leaning on the person's right arm and her legs would be on his-hers left side. The Tannerman had the opposite. The girls legs on the right and the head on the left so this is how the theory emerged. Someone has passed Madeleine through the window which would change her position.
At that time few things did not match: the moving doors and the dog's trail. The Tannerman's route was different to the dog's route. I think this is why the PJ did not pay attention on who usually parked the car at the point where the dog's left the trail. As if this was Madeleine's everydays route the dogs would follow the route further, all the way to the creche or wherever. But they stopped there.
This is why someione said there must be 2 people, one who passed Madeleine and still had her scent on and the other who carried Madeleine away.
Someone argued that the 'passer through the window' was Kate, because she said in her book she went to that road that night but then the dogs would follow Kate and they never did.
Now, when they have the phone records in combination with all of this I think they can solve it.
-
A human loses about 40,000 skin cells per minute, into the air, many of which get deposited on nearby surfaces, and these (with associated secretions and bacteria) are what I think the GNR dogs were trailing.
Give the dog an item with person X's scent on - and the dog will follow the 1000s of skin cells deposited along the route X took.
If person Y had touched person X, then walked away via some route (not taking X), the dog would not track that route, because Y would not be depositing the required thousands of X's skin cells.
So the dogs were in the first instance following the scent on the blanket and in the second instance the scent on the towel.
Therefore they followed the strongest scent on each item - which could have been the same person in both instances - or a different person in instance one from two ???
Is that the correct interpretation?
Excellent piece of research, Pegasus, thank you.
-
What we have is Madeleine's scent being tracked by the GNR dogs along routes we have been told she travelled durinng the week. ... What the dogs haven't given us is a trail to somewhere that Madeleine was not known to have passed through....
Good point.
Going back to square one for a moment, seems like almost everyone, whatever type of theory they have, is assuming that the method used to get out of apartment was either walking, or being openly carried.
Both methods would I think allow thousands of skin particles to be shed onto the surfaces along the route, which GNR dogs would follow. But what if the method was some other method, one which would leave no trail trackable by GNR dogs?
-
Good point.
Going back to square one for a moment, seems like almost everyone, whatever type of theory they have, is assuming that the method used to get out of apartment was either walking, or being openly carried.
Both methods would I think allow thousands of skin particles to be shed onto the surfaces along the route, which GNR dogs would follow. But what if the method was some other method, one which would leave no trail trackable by GNR dogs?
Misty has mentioned a laundry basket in an earlier post.
-
Good point.
Going back to square one for a moment, seems like almost everyone, whatever type of theory they have, is assuming that the method used to get out of apartment was either walking, or being openly carried.
Both methods would I think allow thousands of skin particles to be shed onto the surfaces along the route, which GNR dogs would follow. But what if the method was some other method, one which would leave no trail trackable by GNR dogs?
This cannot be true. That this is any of her routes that she was taking every day. If it was the dogs wouldn't stop next to the lamppost and in parking area. They would carry on to the creche.
-
I don't know whose scent it was but, well.. The abductor parking his car directly under the streetlamp, in the place clearly and perfectly visible from the Ocean Club entrance used by the parents and their friends, and then parading to his perfectly lit and perfecty visible car with the child in his arms - that sounds absurd.
If we had no evidence except for the first GNR trail (Numi and Kit), that would indicate walking or being carried, around block 5 then "past" tapas reception.
If we had no evidence except for the later GNR dog trails, that would indicate walking or being carried, around block 5 then over road to lamppost in or near carpark, with possibly then entry into a vehicle.
-
This cannot be true. That this is any of her routes that she was taking every day. If it was the dogs wouldn't stop next to the lamppost and in parking area. They would carry on to the creche.
Yes I think the simplest conclusion to draw, from a trail ending where vehicles may be parked, is entry into a vehicle.
The question is, on the bathtowel, was it the child's scent, or someone elses scent, which the dog's were following to the lamppost? When was the bathtowel handed to police?
-
If we had no evidence except for the first GNR trail (Numi and Kit), that would indicate walking or being carried, around block 5 then "past" tapas reception.
If we had no evidence except for the later GNR dog trails, that would indicate walking or being carried, around block 5 then over road to lamppost in or near carpark, with possibly then entry into a vehicle.
One theory to this was that Madeleine was found drown in the swimming pool and taken away by someone to a parked car to avoid the publicity..
There are so many theories..... 8-)(--)
-
Madeleine left 5A at around 9. She was moved again at 10 and seen by the Smiths. If you're following an alive scent then good luck. We all would want that to be the case i.e. she is alive.
-
A human loses many hundreds of dead skin cells per minute, into the air, then deposited on surrounding surfaces (ground, walls, plants, etc). This process does not abruptly halt at the end, it continues. It is those thousands of deposited particles which the GNR dogs detect on surfaces, that is how they follow a trail. Therefore the GNR dog trails are potentially relevant to both types of theory.
-
The question is, on the bathtowel, was it the child's scent, or someone elses scent, which the dog's were following to the lamppost? When was the bathtowel handed to police?
Who was that person? If it was anyone of McCanns family why the dogs did not find them, they were in OC at the time.
That person left OC area on the 3rd or the 4th otherwise the dogs would find the person.
-
Who was that person? If it was anyone of McCanns family why the dogs did not find them, they were in OC at the time.
That person left OC area on the 3rd or the 4th otherwise the dogs would find the person.
I don't know, one idea is that during the searches, one of the searchers or staff parked their vehicle near lamppost, entered 5A, at some stage needed bathroom, washed hands, dried on towel, then later walked back to their vehicle parked next to lamppost. That scent might be stronger on towel than child's?
-
I don't know, one idea is that during the searches, one of the searchers or staff parked their vehicle near lamppost, entered 5A, at some stage needed bathroom, washed hands, dried on towel, then later walked back to their vehicle parked next to lamppost. That scent might be stronger on towel than child's?
I didn't see in the files any mention of the unknown searchers entering the apartment, let alone washing their hands in their bathroom. I thought if this had happened someone would know this. And do we know if this towel was in the bathroom at all?
Don't forget this same trail was picked on the 8th. This means 'the person' never walked on this route between the 4th and the 8th.
So we have someone who only did walk on this route either prior to 4th and never again or prior to 4th and never until after the 8th?
What I said before, from the phone records it would be easy to find this person, if the person exist.
So, for this theory of yours:
1. The person had to be inside the apartment and relaxed enough to be able to to go into the toilet there.
2. The person had to never walk on this route again, or between before 4th and 8th
3. Person had to have departed by a car.
IMO, there is a bigger mathematical chance this was Madeleine than the person from 1.2.3. but if the person existed it would be possible to find him-her.
-
I didn't see in the files any mention of the unknown searchers entering the apartment, let alone washing their hands in their bathroom. I thought if this had happened someone would know this. And do we know if this towel was in the bathroom at all?
Don't forget this same trail was picked on the 8th. This means 'the person' never walked on this route between the 4th and the 8th.
It was not the same trail. Numi and Kit (the dogs that searched on the 4th May) did not go to the parking lot.
The route initially taken was from the front entrance door to the passageway between Blocks 4 and 5, along the corridor and then along the passage that leads past the entrance to the small reception to the resort's swimming pool.
-
TRAIL 1: May 4th at about 02:30 AM
Handlers: Morais and Laçao
Dogs: Numi and Kit
Source: comfort blanket
Route: around block 5 then past tapas reception
TRAIL 2: May 4th at about 23:00 PM
Handler: Fernandes (supervised by Chief Silva)
Dogs: Rex and Zarus
Source: bathtowel
Route: around block 5 then across road to lamppost in/near carpark.
TRAIL 3: May 8th at about 23:45 PM
Handler: Fernandes (supervised by Silva)
Dogs: Rex and Zarus
Source: bathtowel
Route: around block 5 then across road to lamppost in/near carpark.
All simplified, some details omitted/estimated, please check every detail in statements, this is just my interpretation.
-
TRAIL 1: May 4th at about 02:30 AM
Handlers: Morais and Laçao
Dogs: Numi and Kit
Source: comfort blanket
Route: around block 5 then past tapas reception
TRAIL 2: May 4th at about 23:00 PM
Handler: Fernandes (supervised by Chief Silva)
Dogs: Rex and Zarus
Source: bathtowel
Route: around block 5 then across road to lamppost in/near carpark.
TRAIL 3: May 8th at about 23:45 PM
Handler: Fernandes (supervised by Silva)
Dogs: Rex and Zarus
Source: bathtowel
Route: around block 5 then across road to lamppost in/near carpark.
All simplified, some details omitted/estimated, please check every detail in statements, this is just my interpretation.
Ah, thank you. Now everything is clear :)
-
Trail 1 (May 4th at about 02:30 AM) - No mention of crossing road. The dogs go past tapas reception.
Maybe trail 1 is the origin of some early newspaper reports claiming GNR dogs tracked to near supermarket?
-
Ah, thank you. Now everything is clear :)
As I said, it's simplified, and some details are uncertain.
-
Trail 1 (May 4th at about 02:30 AM) - No mention of crossing road. The dogs go past tapas reception.
Maybe trail 1 is the origin of some early newspaper reports claiming GNR dogs tracked to near supermarket?
The supermarket is nowhere in the files.
It is the same as the story of a mystery couple who left PDL on the night of the disappearance.
-
The supermarket is nowhere in the files.
It is the same as the story of a mystery couple who left PDL on the night of the disappearance.
The "dogs trail to supermarket carpark" story was in a UK paper on 5th May.
So if it's based on a real GNR dog trail, it must be before that story was written, and before the paper went to press IYSWIM
-
The "dogs trail to supermarket carpark" story was in a UK paper on 5th May.
So if it's based on a real GNR dog trail, it must be before that story was written, and before the paper went to press IYSWIM
It was reported that at the time the British journalists were sitting in a cafe and every morning they were getting their stories from the local 'leaks'.
The supermarket story is obviously not true, as we have detailed reports of the dogs movements written by the professionals who worked with these dogs.
IMO these reports are one of the best and the most professional in the whole files.
-
It was reported that at the time the British journalists were sitting in a cafe and every morning they were getting their stories from the local 'leaks'.
The supermarket story is obviously not true, as we have detailed reports of the dogs movements written by the professionals who worked with these dogs.
IMO these reports are one of the best and the most professional in the whole files.
Map showing possible route of trail 1 at about 2AM on 4th using blanket.
This trail does not mention crossing Rua Martins.
Lacao says something like "The route initially taken was from the front entrance door to the path between Blocks 4 and 5, along the path and then along the pavement that leads past the entrance to the small reception" (solid yellow line) "After that the whole of the area surrounding the resort was searched" so presumably they continued past tapas reception further along same pavement (dotted yellow line).
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id258.html#gnr10
We don't know which way they continued however it is not impossible that they went to supermarket carpark
(orange) or past the front of the supermarket (white).
"A trail of her scent picked up by police dogs at the flat was followed to a supermarket"
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/maddy-3-goes-missing-472340
This Mirror story probably went to print before 11PM 4th and if so it cannot be based on trail 2 or 3 so may be based on trail 1 as told to the journalist by a searcher who witnessed it.
-
I don't know what is the correct interpretation of the GNR dogs trails.
One deduction I have made is-
Looking at the trails using the towel (late 4th and late 8th).
Let's give the person whose scent was dominant on the towel, and who the dogs were therefore tracking, the name X (this might be the child or might be someone else).
The towel trails on late 4th and late 8th are the same.
Therefore person X created a scent trail from the front door to the lamppost sometime before late 4th.
But here is the deduction: person X created absolutely no further scent trail, from the front door to anywhere, between late 4th and late 8th.
There is one noticeable difference between the tracking of the s&r dogs on the 4th & 8th May. On the 4th May, they followed a trail which was solely at ground level, making no apparent attempt to access any stairwells.
On the 8th, however, they were "taken into Blocks 4 & 5", where they showed interest in 3 doors on upper floors. IMO this could mean that the scent the s&r dogs followed came from someone who had not been to the upper floors and 4G until after the night of the 4th May, but had walked the ground route around the block & to the car park. So, unless a living Madeleine was hidden & then removed from either block between 4th & 8th May under the noses of the watching authorities, I believe that effectively shows the scent on the towel was unlikely to have been Madeleine's.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ANTONIO_SILVA.htm
-
There is one noticeable difference between the tracking of the s&r dogs on the 4th & 8th May. On the 4th May, they followed a trail which was solely at ground level, making no apparent attempt to access any stairwells.
On the 8th, however, they were "taken into Blocks 4 & 5", where they showed interest in 3 doors on upper floors. IMO this could mean that the scent the s&r dogs followed came from someone who had not been to the upper floors and 4G until after the night of the 4th May, but had walked the ground route around the block & to the car park. So, unless a living Madeleine was hidden & then removed from either block between 4th & 8th May under the noses of the watching authorities, I believe that effectively shows the scent on the towel was unlikely to have been Madeleine's.
So whose scent was on this towel, then? The McCann family moved on the first floor during the third to fourth May night, to the Paynes apartment. If your hypothesis is right we have here a mysterious person that was not a McCann, yet used their towel and after the 4th May visited not only the upper floor of the block 5, but also the block 4, as the apartment 4G, the second flat occupied by the McCanns is in the block 4.
-
So whose scent was on this towel, then? The McCann family moved on the first floor during the third to fourth May night, to the Paynes apartment. If your hypothesis is right we have here a mysterious person that was not a McCann, yet used their towel and after the 4th May visited not only the upper floor of the block 5, but also the block 4, as the apartment 4G, the second flat occupied by the McCanns is in the block 4.
I don't know whose scent was on the bathtowel. I am just trying to make sense of it all, and it's not easy.
Re GNR dogs "showing interest" outside 5J and 5H and 4G: I think the handlers took the dogs methodically to the front doors of all apartments in blocks 5 and 4. I don't think the dogs actually followed a trail to those apartments.
-
So whose scent was on this towel, then? The McCann family moved on the first floor during the third to fourth May night, to the Paynes apartment. If your hypothesis is right we have here a mysterious person that was not a McCann, yet used their towel and after the 4th May visited not only the upper floor of the block 5, but also the block 4, as the apartment 4G, the second flat occupied by the McCanns is in the block 4.
What I am saying is that, in my opinion, the scent on the towel did not come from Madeleine. It most probably came from either another member of the McCann family, as the first s&r dog deployed late on 4th May almost immediately headed to block 4, so there was clearly a good scent trail. We know that the McCanns relocated to 4G sometime on 4th May. They had also been in 5H on the night of the 3rd for a while.
The towel could also have been used by Fiona Payne, as she remained with Kate in 5a after Madeleine was found missing for quite a while - and may well have used the bathroom during her time there. Fiona was also still in Luz on 8th May.
It would be interesting to know where the various witnesses were dropped off after returning from their interviews at the police station on the 4th - that may explain the dogs' tracking ceasing in the car park opposite. (just a theory)
*Snip
- He remembers that on the 4th of May of the current year, around 23H00, they attempted to tentatively identify and thus reconstruct the path taken by the missing minor. They gave the dogs a Turkish bath towel which was supposedly used by the child in question. This operation was realised by two different dogs.
- That after having given the sniffer dog the towel and next to the residence of the missing girl, more specifically, next to apartment block 5A and 5, the first sniffer dog headed toward the door of that apartment. Immediately afterward, he headed in the direction of block 4, returned around block 5, and came down a road that exists between this block and the leisure area (pools, restaurants, etc).
-
The towel could also have been used by Fiona Payne, as she remained with Kate in 5a after Madeleine was found missing for quite a while - and may well have used the bathroom during her time there.
Good thinking
It would be interesting to know where the various witnesses were dropped off after returning from their interviews at the police station on the 4th
That would assume the GNR dogs cannot determine the direction of a trail (I think they can).
"after having given the sniffer dog the towel and next to the residence of the missing girl ... the first sniffer dog headed toward the door of that apartment ... "
Thankyou for bringing this up. This indicates that in the area outside the front door, the most recent (freshest) trail of the person whose scent was on the towel may possibly have led into (not out of) the apartment. Most interesting.
-
I'd also like to add that I believe the online translation of the statement of Antonio Silva has been tampered with. It is not in the same format as it was originally, and, from memory, I believe there was reference to a discussion the dog handlers had with the GNR about using items of Madeleine's clothes for scenting, but the handlers were told something along the lines of it not being appropriate. The GNR final report, however, stated that the s&r dogs DID use Madeleine's clothes for scenting.
*snip* page 3517
At about 19.. the undersigned officer, accompanied by the Commander, Officer Silva, took part in a meetings with the PJ Directorate, being asked by the PJ about the viability of giving the girl's clothes to the dogs for the dogs to sniff again, and if by means of the odour inhaled, they would be able to mark an identical odour in one of the resort apartments even though its door was closed.
With regard to this task, Officer Silva referred to the fact that the time that had passed would be a crucial condition for the dogs' work in obtaining results and that the entirety of the human odours existing in the apartments and access paths could make the dogs' searches very difficult. However, in spite of not being a normal situation for tracking, it could be attempted, whilst the operation should be carried out as quickly as possible and not directed towards one but to all the apartments in the resort, it being appropriate for the handler not to know which apartment was chosen, so as not the be conditioned.
In this concrete situation, the objective would be for the dogs to carry out a discontinuous search, in other words, to sniff the girl's clothes and immediately search near to the apartments, checking to see if there was any change in the behaviour of the dogs.
At about 23.00 accompanied by a PJ inspector, the searches were begun. After Rex was given the girl's clothing to sniff, he began to search on the ground floor of block 5 and when he passed the door of apartment 5 A (the place the girl had disappeared from) according to his handler, officer Fernandes, the dog altered its behaviour, sniffing with greater intensity than he had done before. Apartment 5J of the same block was also checked as the dog had been more agitated than before as if there were a very strong strange odour there. It was stated that this apartment had been unoccupied for some time. Afterwards, the same kind of search was carried out using the dog Zarus which in general terms showed the same behaviour in the same places as Rex had done.
-
Yes there are small differences between Fernandes statement, A.F.Silva statement, and the final report.
Looking for now at just those 2 actual statements, and at only the first thing that happens (at about 11PM 4th):
Fernandes statement:
"after the dogs were given this scent from the towel and near apartment 5A of block 5, the first sniffer dog headed to the door of that apartment"
A.F.Silva statement (he is the chief and is supervising handler Fernandes):
"after having given the sniffer dog the towel and next to the residence of the missing girl, more specifically, next to apartment 5A of block 5, the first sniffer dog headed toward the door of that apartment"
-
I think dogs can determine a trail's direction from as few as 5 footsteps.
And I think they can detemine relative age of trails and follow the freshest.
"headed to the door". Hmm. So, if we actually listen to the dog, what does that indicate?
-
The towel could also have been used by Fiona Payne, as she remained with Kate in 5a after Madeleine was found missing for quite a while
In this case the dogs would go to Payne's apartment and find Fiona.
-
In this case the dogs would go to Payne's apartment and find Fiona.
Yes what you say makes sense.
BTW at about 11pm on May 4th when the dog's first response (starting outside) was "headed to the door" (of 5A), a straight interpretation is: the target is inside the apartment at this time.
-
In this case the dogs would go to Payne's apartment and find Fiona.
The dogs were not permitted to enter any of the apartments, so the person to whom the scent belonged may or may not have been in any of the apartments indicated at said time.
It was just one suggestion, Fiona having been in 5a & 5H, & in all probability a visitor to 4G. The same could be said of the 4 McCanns, and anyone else who had access to 5a on the 4th & also visited 5H & 4G between 4th & 8th. However, that must rule out a deceased Madeleine, as the cadaver dogs did not indicate in 5H & 4G.
The interesting factor is the dogs following the same ground-level route on the 2nd expedition, some 5 days after Madeleine had disappeared & a multitude of people had walked the route. Would this indicate a fresh scent trail deposited by an individual who only frequented the area in question during 4-8th May, or would any residual scent specifically from 4th May still be evident?
-
Yes what you say makes sense.
BTW at about 11pm on May 4th when the dog's first response (starting outside) was "headed to the door" (of 5A), a straight interpretation is: the target is inside the apartment at this time.
And they did not open the door? The dog did not insist on his find?
IMO what you are saying is a big big speculation.
1.First you speculate that the scent on the source given to the dogs is not Madeleine's.
2. Second you speculate it is Fiona's scent on the source given to the dogs.
3. Third you speculate that the dogs did find Fiona Payne but she did not open the door although she was inside to let the dogs find her.
After all of these speculations which you take as FACTS. why then the dogs went to the car park?
This is how the internet myths are made up. People start believing that these are facts. Madeleine's scent absent from the towel is not a fact. We don't even know if this is some kind of a misunderstanding. Maybe the towel is actually Madeleine's blanket. How do YOU know it is not?
I can speculate it is. Same as you speculated these are two different things.
-
Would this indicate a fresh scent trail deposited by an individual who only frequented the area in question during 4-8th May, or would any residual scent specifically from 4th May still be evident?
And if this individual is Madeleine and this was her last and freshest scent? This is not possible?
-
What I am saying is that, in my opinion, the scent on the towel did not come from Madeleine. It most probably came from either another member of the McCann family, as the first s&r dog deployed late on 4th May almost immediately headed to block 4, so there was clearly a good scent trail. We know that the McCanns relocated to 4G sometime on 4th May. They had also been in 5H on the night of the 3rd for a while.
The towel could also have been used by Fiona Payne, as she remained with Kate in 5a after Madeleine was found missing for quite a while - and may well have used the bathroom during her time there. Fiona was also still in Luz on 8th May.
It would be interesting to know where the various witnesses were dropped off after returning from their interviews at the police station on the 4th - that may explain the dogs' tracking ceasing in the car park opposite. (just a theory)
*Snip
- He remembers that on the 4th of May of the current year, around 23H00, they attempted to tentatively identify and thus reconstruct the path taken by the missing minor. They gave the dogs a Turkish bath towel which was supposedly used by the child in question. This operation was realised by two different dogs.
- That after having given the sniffer dog the towel and next to the residence of the missing girl, more specifically, next to apartment block 5A and 5, the first sniffer dog headed toward the door of that apartment. Immediately afterward, he headed in the direction of block 4, returned around block 5, and came down a road that exists between this block and the leisure area (pools, restaurants, etc).
A very sensible post Misty. Several very good points.
As you say the dog could easily have been interested in the scent of one of the adults. I had only thought of the sweaty smell of the abductors, but it could also be any of the people who might have handled it., family or friends, or even police.
If it was Madeleines scent that was being followed then she certainly exited via the front door according to the info in your last paragraph. Forget the window, forget the patio door.
-
If the scent wasn't Madeleine's what exactly the dogs would do?
-
And they did not open the door? The dog did not insist on his find?
IMO what you are saying is a big big speculation.
1.First you speculate that the scent on the source given to the dogs is not Madeleine's.
2. Second you speculate it is Fiona's scent on the source given to the dogs.
3. Third you speculate that the dogs did find Fiona Payne but she did not open the door although she was inside to let the dogs find her.
After all of these speculations which you take as FACTS. why then the dogs went to the car park?
This is how the internet myths are made up. People start believing that these are facts. Madeleine's scent absent from the towel is not a fact. We don't even know if this is some kind of a misunderstanding. Maybe the towel is actually Madeleine's blanket. How do YOU know it is not?
I can speculate it is. Same as you speculated these are two different things.
Just to make it clear, they are speculations, never did I state them as facts. Someone else brought up the FP speculation, the value I saw in it was simply that it considered the general possibility that a towel might be used by someone after the child did. I am as lost as most on these GNR dog trails - I do not understand them.
-
And they did not open the door?....
The handler at about 11pm on the 4th would be working from the strong assumption that the child was not at that time (11pm 4th) in the apartment. I think that if a GNR dog outside did go first to the front door, this would be dismissed by the handler like this "oh yes fine very good dog but we already know she had been in there earlier" and so I don't think the handler would open that door and let the dog in. But I emphasise this all pure speculation at best.
-
If it was Madeleines scent that was being followed then she certainly exited via the front door according to the info in your last paragraph. Forget the window, forget the patio door.
That is an excellent point, assuming the scent was Madeleine's, which would also open the door to a plethora of questions about the various locations the cadaver odour was detected due to the length of time a body has to decompose enough to contaminate.
However, I believe that the indications by Rex & Zarus at 4G specifically pretty much rule out the scent being Madeleine's.
-
That is an excellent point, assuming the scent was Madeleine's, which would also open the door to a plethora of questions about the various locations the cadaver odour was detected due to the length of time a body has to decompose enough to contaminate.
However, I believe that the indications by Rex & Zarus at 4G specifically pretty much rule out the scent being Madeleine's.
[/quote
So you believe the cadaver scent which had no scientific backing was Madeleine's but the Madeleine's towel did not carry her scent. Why is this?
Do you know where this Madeleine's towel was kept?Do we know it was accessible to others to touch and leave scent?
-
[/quote
So you believe the cadaver scent which had no scientific backing was Madeleine's but the Madeleine's towel did not carry her scent. Why is this?
Do you know where this Madeleine's towel was kept?Do we know it was accessible to others to touch and leave scent?
No. I believe that the towel was not directly specific to Madeleine. There were 3 children who were reportedly bathed & dried in 5a on the evening of the 3rd, Kate took a shower & Gerry had a bath. Unless the towels in the apartment were all patterned or coloured differently to one another, I do not see how anyone could have been 100% sure who used which towel.
AFAIK, Kate has never mentioned giving the Portuguese police a towel for the dogs to use for scenting and the GNR final report is non-specific about who gave the towel to the handlers.
Had the s&r dogs actually used an item of Madeleine's clothing, this speculation would not be happening. The question has to be asked, in the light of the GNR final report stating Madeleine's clothes WERE used - was this just shoddy policing or a more deliberate attempt to deflect attention?
-
No. I believe that the towel was not directly specific to Madeleine. There were 3 children who were reportedly bathed & dried in 5a on the evening of the 3rd, Kate took a shower & Gerry had a bath. Unless the towels in the apartment were all patterned or coloured differently to one another, I do not see how anyone could have been 100% sure who used which towel.
AFAIK, Kate has never mentioned giving the Portuguese police a towel for the dogs to use for scenting and the GNR final report is non-specific about who gave the towel to the handlers.
Had the s&r dogs actually used an item of Madeleine's clothing, this speculation would not be happening. The question has to be asked, in the light of the GNR final report stating Madeleine's clothes WERE used - was this just shoddy policing or a more deliberate attempt to deflect attention?
I think it was reported that the dogs were given several pieces of Madeleine's clothes to sniff and they (the dogs) chose these items which were picked for this operation. I remember this being reported in the first days.
-
I think I've solved the towel - blanket mystery!
Antonio Freitas Silva
Date: 2007.05.09
Location: DIC Portimao
Occupation: 1st Sergeant GNR
Location: GNR-Queluz
The deponent states that:
• He comes to the process in the role of Chief of the GNR Search and Rescue Team. He coordinated all the work carried out by the two sniffer dogs in the Luz zone and the immediate areas relating to the disappearance of the English minor Madeleine McCann from the Ocean Club.
• He remembers that on the 4th of May of the current year, around 23h00, they attempted to tentatively identify and thus reconstruct the path taken by the missing minor. They gave the dogs a Turkish bath towel which was supposedly used by the child in question. This operation was realised by two different dogs.
Google search for turkish bath towel
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=turkish+bath+towel&espv=2&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=_i2qU9B34tDsBtfpgYgE&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAg&biw=1024&bih=560
It gives you a blanket. Turkish bath towel is a blanket!
http://www.pinterest.com/sssarahjones/turkish-bath-towel/
-
I think I've solved the towel - blanket mystery!
Google search for turkish bath towel ... It gives you a blanket. ...
Very humorous Vixte, however you have made a valuable suggestion: doing image searches.
Try an image search for "toalha turca"
(yes include the quotes)
Now this is very interesting
Can we deduce from the results, that the adjective "turca", when used to describe a "toalha", is simply a description of the fabric type, (and not a description of colour or design)?
Notice how some of the search finds are white with no pattern?
And they check out if you follow the links - white towels described as "turca"
So could the "turkish bath towel" used by Fernandes actually be one of the several large white towels we see in PJ photos of the apartment?
-
I think I've solved the towel - blanket mystery!
Google search for turkish bath towel
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=turkish+bath+towel&espv=2&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=_i2qU9B34tDsBtfpgYgE&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAg&biw=1024&bih=560
It gives you a blanket. Turkish bath towel is a blanket!
http://www.pinterest.com/sssarahjones/turkish-bath-towel/
Sorry, but I don't see how you can confuse a plain pink blanket with an Aztec towel. Can you provide a link to a qstatement which proves Kate or Gerry gave the PJ a pink aztec towel used only by Madeleine?
-
I want to check out "aztec towel" next.
Can anyone tell me which statement this "aztec" word is in?
ETA I searched and can't find "aztec" anywhere in the files in relation to a scent source for GNR dogs.
(The word "aztec" is found in the files re a blanket found north of Odiaxere, and also in tabloids' early remarkable "barn" story, both are nothing to do with GNR dog trails in PDL).
I think the turkish bath towel used by Fernandes was probably a white bath towel, and turkish refers to the fabric type.
-
i think madeleine had a comfort blanket. This is not a large size blanket that someone uses as a cover.
I presume a comfort blanket has the size of a long wide bath towel. Perhaps the handlers failed to recognise the item.
-
i think madeleine had a comfort blanket. This is not a large size blanket that someone uses as a cover.
I presume a comfort blanket has the size of a long wide bath towel. Perhaps the handlers failed to recognise the item.
Nope. It is clearly stated in the files, that the blanket (described as pink/orange) was given to the GNR patrol, with the dogs Numi and Kit, handled by the officers Lacao and Morais.
On 4th May he was called at about 01.15 when he was asleep at home, requesting him to appear at the Lagos GNR post as a small girl had disappeared. After arriving at the GNR post with his colleagues Morais and two dogs (Numi and Kit), German Shepherd dogs, which made up the search team, they immediately left for P da L. They arrived at about 02.30.
When they arrived at the scene, they entered the McCann's apartment by the front door, and entered the living room, where there were some PJ officers as well as the MCCann couple. The just talked to some colleagues from the PJ and asked for a piece of clothing that Madeleine had worn or used recently. They were given a pink/orange blanket that the child had been covered with in her bed.
The SAR dogs Rex and Zarus were given another item, a towel. I don't think any person of the normal IQ would confuse a towel with a blanket.
-
There are several white bathtowels in the PJ photos early hours of 4th, and in the other batch of PJ photos later on 4th.
Maybe one of those white bathtowels was used by Fernandes/Rex/Zarus at about 11pm on the 4th?
-
There are several white bathtowels in the PJ photos early hours of 4th, and in the other batch of PJ photos later on 4th.
Maybe one of those white bathtowels was used by Fernandes/Rex/Zarus at about 11pm on the 4th?
OK, but would the McCanns have been able to determine which towel had been used solely by Madeleine, assuming that the towels weren't used communally by the children?
-
OK, but would the McCanns have been able to determine which towel had been used solely by Madeleine, assuming that the towels weren't used communally by the children?
Good questions.
Presumably the PJ/GNR must have been told which towel to use, by one or other of the parents?
And also that requires that one child used a different towel than the other two - it's possible.
As I said I am in the dark here trying to figure this out.
-
Good questions.
Presumably the PJ/GNR must have been told which towel to use, by one or other of the parents?
And also that requires that one child used a different towel than the other two - it's possible.
As I said I am in the dark here trying to figure this out.
From what I have seen with British tourists all of the children on holiday and I have seen many had their own towels , brought from home. They are usually with children's favorite characters.
No parent with a small child would go on a holiday without a children's towel.These towels are usually not kept in the bathroom and not mixed up with adult towels.
If you don't trust me on this log on mumsnet and ask... I guarantee you would get the answer I just wrote above.
-
Another question:
We assumed lots of theories in this case.
What if we assume the blanket had the scent of person who removed the blanket away from Madeleine and the towel had Madeleine's scent?
-
Another question:
We assumed lots of theories in this case.
What if we assume the blanket had the scent of person who removed the blanket away from Madeleine and the towel had Madeleine's scent?
You mean one of the McCanns? That would explain why the dogs went to the Tapas.
-
Just looking briefly at the bag theory, would that leave a trail which the the GNR dogs would detect?
-
Fascinating. I haven't paid too much attention to this Thread because I have always thought that it was Madeleine's pink comfort blanket that was given to the sniffer dogs. It was certainly photographed on her bed after she went missing. And then mysteriously disappeared. Probably to the local Police Station.
Towels, incidentally, get wet, and were probably used by more than one person. The Pink Blanket will have been dry, and was on the bed next to Madeleine. An obvious choice, I would have thought.
-
This from Kate's book page 93...
According to the files, the tracker dogs did not go out until 11pm on 4 May. At some point in the first twenty-four hours (I could not say when exactly, but probably that morning) I recall one of the GNR patrol officers asking us for some of Madeleine’s clothing or belongings to enable these dogs to identify her scent. I fetched the pink princess blanket she took to bed with her every night, which they took, and some of her clothes, which they didn’t.
-
This from Kate's book page 93...
According to the files, the tracker dogs did not go out until 11pm on 4 May. At some point in the first twenty-four hours (I could not say when exactly, but probably that morning) I recall one of the GNR patrol officers asking us for some of Madeleine’s clothing or belongings to enable these dogs to identify her scent. I fetched the pink princess blanket she took to bed with her every night, which they took, and some of her clothes, which they didn’t.
This is how I have always understood it to be. The Pink Blanket that suddenly disappeared to much excitement. It must have been buried with Madeleine.
This won't have happened on the first disposal because it was still there late that night. So Kate kept it, covered in dog saliva, and then buried it with Madeleine later, did she?
-
This is how I have always understood it to be. The Pink Blanket that suddenly disappeared to much excitement. It must have been buried with Madeleine.
This won't have happened on the first disposal because it was still there late that night. So Kate kept it, covered in dog saliva, and then buried it with Madeleine later, did she?
Next time you visit ask if you can see Madeleine's pink blanket? I bet you will be disappointed.
-
Next time you visit ask if you can see Madeleine's pink blanket? I bet you will be disappointed.
The Portimao Police Station Cat is still sleeping on it. If they haven't ditched it already.
But I will ask.
-
Pages 825=828 statement of CI Vitor Matos
- As you know, yesterday, 8 May 2007 at 23h45, the undersigned joined a search effected by the GNR dog team which targeted Blocks 5 and 4 of the Ocean Club resort and adjacent areas, with the objective of trying to reconstruct the possible route taken by the missing child on 3 May 2007.
- The search was led by GNR 1st Sergeant A.F.Silva, head of the search and rescue team who coordinated all the work done by the "dual track" [method] which was performed by two tracker dogs with their handler, GNR officer P.Fernandes.
- The members of the GNR advised that the tracker dogs are trained to search mainly in rural areas, given the fact that the best capability of the animal is to identify a different and strong smell in a wide, open area, it being sure that in terms of timing they said that after 48 hours from the event it is difficult to obtain positive results. Concerning urban areas, or areas with identical characteristics, they advised that due to the fact of there being a large number of odours in the air, it becomes impossible for the tracker dog to manage to identify/locate the "target smell", because it is diffuse [dispersed; broken up], [the dog] ending up becoming confused and indicating its disinterest in continuing the search.
- Further, in an informal conversation with the GNR team, they advised that on the 4 May they had done the same work, with no control over the direction taken by the dogs, i.e. they were not directed into the buildings, it being certain that they took the same route described above, with the same attitude, losing the trail next to the car park of Block 6.
*Snip*
- The GNR team performing the search had in its possession, packed in a plastic bag, a towel supposedly used to clean the missing youngster - Madeleine McCann - furnished by her parents.
*Snip* (final paragraph)
- According to the GNR team and after the work was finished, they gave their opinion about what had happened, saying it is difficult the be precise about the dogs' achievement given the conditioning factors involved - smells, time of day, area concerned - adding still more the degree of uncertainty, because the clues revealed by the dogs can only be significant by confirming if in an area of intense odour, the intended [hunted; sought after] smell is found.
- Laid bare, in their understanding, the interest demonstrated by the dog at the doors of some apartments can not signify that the scent of the missing child was detected, but solely a mere confirmation and going off track [straying], because it never showed the handler that it had found the intended scent.
Whilst much of the information in the above statement was the Chief Inspector's interpretation of the information relayed by the dog handler's he accompanied on the second s&r dogs' operation, I feel that the "48 hour" point for living scent is as significant as the 28day time limit for cadaver odour.
I question why the dogs could follow the same ground route on 2 occasions 4 days apart (aside from signalling at the upper apartments). It sugests to me that the scent came from an individual who was using only the route the dogs followed, and leaving via the carpark on more than one occasion.
-
Pages 825=828 statement of CI Vitor Matos
- As you know, yesterday, 8 May 2007 at 23h45, the undersigned joined a search effected by the GNR dog team which targeted Blocks 5 and 4 of the Ocean Club resort and adjacent areas, with the objective of trying to reconstruct the possible route taken by the missing child on 3 May 2007.
- The search was led by GNR 1st Sergeant A.F.Silva, head of the search and rescue team who coordinated all the work done by the "dual track" [method] which was performed by two tracker dogs with their handler, GNR officer P.Fernandes.
- The members of the GNR advised that the tracker dogs are trained to search mainly in rural areas, given the fact that the best capability of the animal is to identify a different and strong smell in a wide, open area, it being sure that in terms of timing they said that after 48 hours from the event it is difficult to obtain positive results. Concerning urban areas, or areas with identical characteristics, they advised that due to the fact of there being a large number of odours in the air, it becomes impossible for the tracker dog to manage to identify/locate the "target smell", because it is diffuse [dispersed; broken up], [the dog] ending up becoming confused and indicating its disinterest in continuing the search.
- Further, in an informal conversation with the GNR team, they advised that on the 4 May they had done the same work, with no control over the direction taken by the dogs, i.e. they were not directed into the buildings, it being certain that they took the same route described above, with the same attitude, losing the trail next to the car park of Block 6.
*Snip*
- The GNR team performing the search had in its possession, packed in a plastic bag, a towel supposedly used to clean the missing youngster - Madeleine McCann - furnished by her parents.
*Snip* (final paragraph)
- According to the GNR team and after the work was finished, they gave their opinion about what had happened, saying it is difficult the be precise about the dogs' achievement given the conditioning factors involved - smells, time of day, area concerned - adding still more the degree of uncertainty, because the clues revealed by the dogs can only be significant by confirming if in an area of intense odour, the intended [hunted; sought after] smell is found.
- Laid bare, in their understanding, the interest demonstrated by the dog at the doors of some apartments can not signify that the scent of the missing child was detected, but solely a mere confirmation and going off track [straying], because it never showed the handler that it had found the intended scent.
Whilst much of the information in the above statement was the Chief Inspector's interpretation of the information relayed by the dog handler's he accompanied on the second s&r dogs' operation, I feel that the "48 hour" point for living scent is as significant as the 28day time limit for cadaver odour.
I question why the dogs could follow the same ground route on 2 occasions 4 days apart (aside from signalling at the upper apartments). It sugests to me that the scent came from an individual who was using only the route the dogs followed, and leaving via the carpark on more than one occasion.
28 day limit ?
8-)(--)
-
28 day limit ?
8-)(--)
John Barrett, former SY dog handler, in Sept 2007.
Remember, it was cadaver contact scent, not cadaver remains.
-
John Barrett, former SY dog handler, in Sept 2007.
Remember, it was cadaver contact scent, not cadaver remains.
Is that an absolute limit and have you checked from other reference sources ?
-
Is that an absolute limit and have you checked from other reference sources ?
No, that is IMO not an absolute limit because it must surely be dependent on the quantity & duration of cadaver contact. The dogs are a tool, not a measuring device.
I am merely highlighting the opinion apparently expressed by the s&r dog handlers regarding the dispersion of living scent in open areas - 5 days after the event in an open area frequented by many would indicate to me that the scent was pretty fresh.
-
No, that is IMO not an absolute limit because it must surely be dependent on the quantity & duration of cadaver contact. The dogs are a tool, not a measuring device.
I am merely highlighting the opinion apparently expressed by the s&r dog handlers regarding the dispersion of living scent in open areas - 5 days after the event in an open area frequented by many would indicate to me that the scent was pretty fresh.
And so would the cadaver scent be when Eddie indicated. Or so it would seem.
-
No, that is IMO not an absolute limit because it must surely be dependent on the quantity & duration of cadaver contact. The dogs are a tool, not a measuring device.
I am merely highlighting the opinion apparently expressed by the s&r dog handlers regarding the dispersion of living scent in open areas - 5 days after the event in an open area frequented by many would indicate to me that the scent was pretty fresh.
So the 28 day marker was irrelevant then ?
-
So the 28 day marker was irrelevant then ?
No, not irrelevant at all. But a 90 day time lapse is stretching it a bit far, don't you think, given the absence of cellular remains pertaining uniquely to Madeleine?
-
Just for you ferryman.
'The searches of the villa and the examination of clothing, for which they borrowed a sports hall were not searches for Madeleine - they were searches associated with the suspects, her parents. '
Please remember that.
-
Just for you ferryman.
'The searches of the villa and the examination of clothing, for which they borrowed a sports hall were not searches for Madeleine - they were searches associated with the suspects, her parents. '
Please remember that.
Not sure if I'm missing something here, but I'm not Ferryman!
Did the PJ really have to remove the McCanns' clothes from the rental villa to test them, or was that done to increase the number of separate places the cadaver odour was indicated?
I got the impression from the video that Eddie "missed" some of the evidence in one of the wardrobes in the rented villa.
-
This from Kate's book page 93...
According to the files, the tracker dogs did not go out until 11pm on 4 May. At some point in the first twenty-four hours (I could not say when exactly, but probably that morning) I recall one of the GNR patrol officers asking us for some of Madeleine’s clothing or belongings to enable these dogs to identify her scent. I fetched the pink princess blanket she took to bed with her every night, which they took, and some of her clothes, which they didn’t.
I think this was in the early hours of the 4th at about 2:30AM because it fits with handler Lacão's statement
"They arrived at about 02.30. They were given a pink/orange blanket that the child had been covered with in her bed"
-
Discussion on this thread has been very useful, thankyou all.
I now think it is likely that the blanket is the scent source used for all three dog trails
(early 4th Numi + Kit, late 4th Rex + Zarus, and late 8th Rex + Zarus).
-
Discussion on this thread has been very useful, thankyou all.
I now think it is likely that the blanket is likely to be the scent source used for all three dog trails
(early 4th Numi + Kit, late 4th Rex + Zarus, and late 8th Rex + Zarus).
Sure. And the GNR dog handlers are the morons that cannot tell the difference between the towel and the blanket. Let's screw the logic all together now.
-
Also I think dogs can tell the direction of a trail.
If they couldn't it would be big fail of evolution - wild dogs thousands of years ago using their sense of smell to trail prey would have 50% of the time gone exactly the wrong way!
-
Discussion on this thread has been very useful, thankyou all.
I now think it is likely that the blanket is the scent source used for all three dog trails
(early 4th Numi + Kit, late 4th Rex + Zarus, and late 8th Rex + Zarus).
I have lost my source, but I read that during evaluation sniffer dogs were capable of following a scent from a piece of material which had been sealed in a jar, on many different occasions and over an extended period of time.
Sealing in an evidence pouch would be just as effective imo if resealed after each exposure to the dogs.
I am sure the GNR teams would be on the ball about that as part of their training.
I would agree that the blanket is the most likely object to have been used for the dogs.
I doubt Dr McCann would have been able to give the GNR handlers on the 8th a 'towel which had been used to dry Madeleine' for the following reasons:-
They had moved out of the apartment; Madeleine's bedding had been washed by housekeeping so it is highly likely towels had been too.
It is unlikely they would have taken soiled towels with them, it would be highly unlikely they were using the same towels four days later.
-
I have lost my source, but I read that during evaluation sniffer dogs were capable of following a scent from a piece of material which had been sealed in a jar, on many different occasions and over an extended period of time.
Sealing in an evidence pouch would be just as effective imo if resealed after each exposure to the dogs.
I am sure the GNR teams would be on the ball about that as part of their training.
I would agree that the blanket is the most likely object to have been used for the dogs.
I doubt Dr McCann would have been able to give the GNR handlers on the 8th a 'towel which had been used to dry Madeleine' for the following reasons:-
They had moved out of the apartment; Madeleine's bedding had been washed by housekeeping so it is highly likely towels had been too.
It is unlikely they would have taken soiled towels with them, it would be highly unlikely they were using the same towels four days later.
Dunno Brietta.
OC doesn't look very upmarket to me. Would they change towels and sheets every day at such a place? If they did take the towels then almost certainly they would bundle them together and the families individual scents would be mixed up.
I agree about the four days later. They would definitely have ben changed by then.
-
I am still of the opinion that the first GNR dogs on the scene were given the pink banket to scent from (although they were only patrol dogs with limited sniffer experience) and the search & rescue dogs were given a towel, as stated by the handlers.
Irrespective of that, the trails both sets of dogs followed don't really provide any clues as to the nature & method of Madeleine's removal from the grounds of the Ocean Club.
However, if skin cells are shed as a human body is moved, does that effectively rule out Smithman & Tannerman who were both carrying uncovered children, but not on the routes trailed, or does cell-shedding cease if someone has been dead for a couple of hours?
As a side issue and off-topic, does anyone know what those 3 hatches on the wall to the right of 5a's front door are for?
-
I am still of the opinion that the first GNR dogs on the scene were given the pink banket to scent from (although they were only patrol dogs with limited sniffer experience) and the search & rescue dogs were given a towel, as stated by the handlers.
That's what I thought until very recently, but now I have changed mind and think it is likely the blanket was used by all the dogs you mention, I'll post the reasoning at a later date.
Irrespective of that, the trails both sets of dogs followed don't really provide any clues as to the nature & method of Madeleine's removal from the grounds of the Ocean Club.
I now think all the trails leading away from apartment by Numi Kit Rex and Zarus are likely to be trails of the child before kidsclub tea on the 3rd.
However, if skin cells are shed as a human body is moved, does that effectively rule out Smithman & Tannerman who were both carrying uncovered children, but not on the routes trailed, or does cell-shedding cease if someone has been dead for a couple of hours?
I think those particles would be shed even if a person is carried in the way described in those sightings, and regardless of status of person being carried. Therefore I think the trails by Numi Kit Rex and Zarus are amongst the indications that neither of those sightings are relevant.
-
That's what I thought until very recently, but now I have changed mind and think it is likely the blanket was used by all the dogs you mention, I'll post the reasoning at a later date. I now think all the trails leading away from apartment by Numi Kit Rex and Zarus are likely to be trails of the child before kidsclub tea on the 3rd.I think those particles would be shed even if a person is carried in the way described in those sightings, and regardless of status of person being carried. Therefore I think the trails by Numi Kit Rex and Zarus are amongst the indications that neither of those sightings are relevant.
I agree with most of that, and it is as I have thought. Still not sure about either of the sightings though.
-
Found the following interesting regarding the skills of these dogs, also when one dog lost the scent a different dog was used to pick up from there and follow it to the destination.
If the investigation had been unsuccessful the trail followed by the dogs would have allowed evidence to be gathered which would have led to the conviction. Quite extraordinary work on their part.
Don't know why the guy only got 16months though, I would have thrown the key away.
I have always thought the GNR dogs had something regarding Madeleine ... we just do not have the ability to work out what it was.
Case Example
On May 13, 2002, a U.S. mail carrier in Philadelphia discovered a package in a mailbox that appeared to be an improvised explosive device. The Philadelphia Police Bomb Squad responded and rendered the device safe.
In a mailbox 1.5 miles away, a similar package was found the following day and rendered safe.
Two days later, human scent was collected with the STU-100 from the remains of these two packages. Starting the dog at one of the mailboxes, a positive indication for scent was given, and the dog began to trail.
After two days of car and pedestrian traffic, the bloodhound was able to follow the trail into a neighborhood where the trail ended. A second dog was started in the neighborhood and identified a house occupied by Preston Lit. The criminal investigation, conducted separately from the human-scent work, brought the police
to the same location (Meserve and King 2002). Lit pleaded guilty and received a 16-month sentence in federal prison.
http://landofpuregold.com/the-pdfs/humanscent-crime.pdf
I can recommend reading all of the article above, I found it very interesting regarding the training of the different types of dogs and also the fact that they are capable of tracking the main source even if contaminated by other scents.
-
...
http://landofpuregold.com/the-pdfs/humanscent-crime.pdf
I can recommend reading all of the article above, I found it very interesting regarding the training of the different types of dogs and also the fact that they are capable of tracking the main source even if contaminated by other scents.
Thanks, brilliant article.
-
I agree with most of that, and it is as I have thought. Still not sure about either of the sightings though.
Those who genuinely seeking the truth, even if coming from opposite places, will find much in common, for there is only one true solution.
-
The GNR dog trails were taken seriously by the PJ, as demonstrated when they show JT the trails and point out that the trails indicate that the removal was not along the route she saw a man walking carrying a child.
( Source: JT statement 10 May 2007 http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html )
So yes I think the GNR dog trails do rule out the JT sighting being relevant,
and also rule out the Smith sighting being relevant
-
The GNR dog trails were taken seriously by the PJ, as demonstrated when they show JT the trails and point out that the trails indicate that the removal was not along the route she saw a man walking carrying a child.
( Source: JT statement 10 May 2007 http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html )
So yes I think the GNR dog trails do rule out the JT sighting being relevant,
and also rule out the Smith sighting being relevant
It doesn't rule out the Smiths sighting IMO.
There is a possibility that Madeleine was taken by car ( which stopped or was parked across the road to the OC reception) and that this car later stopped near the Smiths sighting and the person carrying Madeleine carried on on foot.
Let's speculate that one of the 8 people who are to be questioned had their car parked in the car park where the dogs lost the trail and that they live near the Smiths sighting.. this then would make sense.
Or that someone out of these 8 people had their phone pinging from near OC and then SUDDENLY ( means impossible to do the distance on foot) their phone pinged near the Smiths sighting. This is possible to establish if the OC and the Smiths sighting area are served by different phone towers.
The police would by now know through the phone records if something like this is possible. We cannot possibly know it because we don't have these phone records.
-
It doesn't rule out the Smiths sighting IMO.
There is a possibility that Madeleine was taken by car ( which stopped or was parked across the road to the OC reception) and that this car later stopped near the Smiths sighting and the person carrying Madeleine carried on on foot.
...
Yes if one insists that the Rex/Zarus trail is of the missing child sometime after arriving home from kidsclub tea, and if one also insists that the Smith sighting is of the missing child, then the scenario you describe is a sensible way to combine those two stages of transport, by adding an intervening stage by vehicle.
I don't think that is what happened. Ok, it's a good way of combining the two assumptions into one scenario which appears to explain both. However I think the two assumptions on which it is built are likely to be incorrect.
-
How can the s&r dogs' interest in 4G be explained? We have no information to support Madeleine ever being in Block 4.
-
In a contained-carrying theory what one would expect to see from the GNR dogs is following of recent known trails, and no following of the important trail.
And isn't that what we see with the trails identified by Numi Kit Rex and Xarus ?
Their trails match routes we already know the missing person had followed in the day(s) prior.
-
In a contained-carrying theory what one would expect to see from the GNR dogs is following of recent known trails, and no following of the important trail.
And isn't that what we see with the trails identified by Numi Kit Rex and Xarus ?
Their trails match routes we already know the missing person had followed in the day(s) prior.
That is what I think. Madeleine had walked that path before, and not just once.
-
I think there is big benefit to reading other cases. One can learn many things. For example that when someone drives a car to move something, he may combine the trip with something more mundane, even to pop into a shop for some crisps. Very interesting.
But back to the GNR dog trails, does anyone place any significance on the handler's statement which says that at about 11PM on the 4th, a dog given the scent source to sniff outdoors, went first towards the door? What does this mean? Was it detection of the freshest directional scent trail?
-
I think there is big benefit to reading other cases. One can learn many things. For example that when someone drives a car to move something, he may combine the trip with something more mundane, even to pop into a shop for some crisps. Very interesting.
But back the the GNR dog trails, does anyone place any significance on the handler's statement which says that at about 11PM on the 4th, a dog given the scent source to sniff outdoors, went first towards the door? What does this mean? Was it detection of the freshest directional scent trail?
Personally, I think he could have gone the one way, or the other. Equal scents in both directions. Maybe there was a bit of a delay at the door whilst the door was pulled to, or Madeleine was passed over so more scent there?
We just dont know enough to judge, do we?
But Ferryman is the expert and others too. Maybe they can help?
-
I think the trails the dogs follow are all pre 6pm and the dogs can detect direction.
So the freshest trail would be the first very short trail mentioned by Fernandes, heading towards the front door (this may be the trail home from kidsclub tea on 3rd).
The second freshest is the trail away from the front door (this may be the trail on 3rd from lunch in apartment going first via the tapas area to drop off siblings and then out to older kidsclub) and it loses its followability in the area outside/opposite tapas reception due to environmental factors.
-
I think the trails the dogs follow are all pre 6pm and the dogs can detect direction.
So the freshest trail would be the first very short trail mentioned by Fernandes, heading towards the front door (this may be the trail home from kidsclub tea on 3rd).
The second freshest is the trail away from the front door (this may be the trail on 3rd from lunch in apartment going first via the tapas area to drop off siblings and then out to older kidsclub) and it loses its followability in the area outside/opposite tapas reception due to environmental factors.
Maybe we are being too hopeful that the work carried out by the GNR dog teams shows anything of significance or that they were following Madeleine’s scent at all.
I’ve had another look at Sgt Silva’s statement which is the one identifying the towel as a source.
What does he mean in his concluding sentence? I am confused. What scent were the dogs following if not Madeleine’s whether before or after her abduction?
I have also recapped on Levy’s involvement in the release of these files and wonder if some of the information might not be showing signs of interference, for example, (not being argumentative) blanket and towel?
Antonio Freitas Silva Chief of the GNR Search and Rescue Team, coordinated all the work carried out by the two sniffer dogs in the Luz zone and the immediate areas. I think these teams knew what they were about so any conclusion reached by them has to carry weight.
SNIP
- Because he is asked, he states that in relation to this, it is difficult to evaluate precisely the work of the sniffer dog. It is clear that some conditions involved in this action augment the degree of uncertainty. The signalling of the dog may only signify that they are confirming an intense odour in a zone. On the other hand, given the interest of the dog(s) in some of the apartment doorways, this could signify nothing, but could also very well mean that the dog has caught the odour. The dog did not demonstrate to its owner that it had found the scent it was searching for.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ANTONIO_SILVA.htm
-
... Sgt Silva’s statement ...What does he mean in his concluding sentence? ...
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ANTONIO_SILVA.htm
Silva was supervising handler Fernandes and his two dogs Rex and Zarus
Their work here can be split into two types:
1. Scent item shown to dog, then dog instructed to trail that scent (leading to near a lamppost).
2. Scent item shown to dog, the dog is not instructed to trail that scent, but instead the dog is deliberately
I think what Silva is saying is: in item 2 above, at a few apartment doors the dog shows increased sniffing activity and the reason may be that the dog has encountered strong smells at that door, which the dog needs to do alot of sniffing of, in order to decipher the odour mixture, even if the target scent is not present?
-
Silva was supervising handler Fernandes and his two dogs Rex and Zarus
Their work here can be split into two types:
1. Scent item shown to dog, then dog instructed to trail that scent (leading to near a lamppost).
2. Scent item shown to dog, the dog is not instructed to trail that scent, but instead the dog is deliberately
I think what Silva is saying is: in item 2 above, at a few apartment doors the dog shows increased sniffing activity and the reason may be that the dog has encountered strong smells at that door, which the dog needs to do alot of sniffing of, in order to decipher the odour mixture, even if the target scent is not present?
Clear explanation but some doors and not others? I will need to give it a lot more thought and look at all the GNR statements again.
The McCann apartment and the Payne apartment are obvious connections since Madeleine is known to have been in both.
5J which was unoccupied has always been a puzzlement. Even more so now, as following some of the cites provided by you and some I have found have given a clearer understanding of these sniffer dog abilities.
They may have been confused, but their training taught them concentration on the main source of scent and apparently they do not deviate from that. So although sniffing to differentiate ... one dog even raising itself up at a balcony to sniff the air ... I think they were scenting and following the initial source of the scent. I think they may well have been trailing Madeleine, whether that was prior to the 3rd or not I have no idea.
Silva's statement has thrown me.
-
Clear explanation but some doors and not others? I will need to give it a lot more thought and look at all the GNR statements again.
The McCann apartment and the Payne apartment are obvious connections since Madeleine is known to have been in both.
5J which was unoccupied has always been a puzzlement. Even more so now, as following some of the cites provided by you and some I have found have given a clearer understanding of these sniffer dog abilities.
They may have been confused, but their training taught them concentration on the main source of scent and apparently they do not deviate from that. So although sniffing to differentiate ... one dog even raising itself up at a balcony to sniff the air ... I think they were scenting and following the initial source of the scent. I think they may well have been trailing Madeleine, whether that was prior to the 3rd or not I have no idea.
Silva's statement has thrown me.
The Silva/Fernandes/Rex/Zarus team at about 23:00 on May 8th noted interest at 5J door but did not enter.
5J was entered on the 10th:
"On 10th May at about 20.10, upon the request of the PJ, searches were carried out in all of the apartments belonging to blocks 4 and 5 of the OC, two tracker dogs and two search and rescue dogs being used
... at apartment 5J ... it was observed that the odour came from close to the fridge, which was open and contained some rotting meat and vegetables".
(Source: Vol 13 Page 3523)
Were the 4 dogs used on 10th May Rex Zarus Numi and Kit ?
-
I think the trails the dogs follow are all pre 6pm and the dogs can detect direction.
So the freshest trail would be the first very short trail mentioned by Fernandes, heading towards the front door (this may be the trail home from kidsclub tea on 3rd).
The second freshest is the trail away from the front door (this may be the trail on 3rd from lunch in apartment going first via the tapas area to drop off siblings and then out to older kidsclub) and it loses its followability in the area outside/opposite tapas reception due to environmental factors.
How do you explain the dogs' interest in 4G?
-
How do you explain the dogs' interest in 4G?
In the files it suggests the interest may have been due to a tray of dirty plates/cutlery on the floor of the 1st floor walkway outside 4G door (the holiday company were delivering meals to them at this stage).
-
In the files it suggests the interest may have been due to a tray of dirty plates/cutlery on the floor of the 1st floor walkway outside 4G door (the holiday company were delivering meals to them at this stage).
You don't seriously believe that, do you? They were trained search & rescue dogs. That's almost tantamount to saying they followed the trail of room service around blocks 4 & 5.
-
I found a very very short video clip of a GNR dog being shown a scent item to sniff.
The scent item itself cannot be seen. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AzxCjphv40#t=69
You need to pause the video at about 1:07 to see it. What date,was this? And which dog?
-
Well it looks like Andy Redwoods back to us, but I can't be sure. If it is , then it was in fairly recent days, and outside the front door to 5A it seems. But once again, there is too little showing to be sure, but outside 5A front door at a glance anyhow.
Now the dog? Come on ... enlighten us please.
-
The short video snippet of GNR dog being shown scent item, is from early May 2007
Any ideas what day? Could it be May 11th? Just guessing.
-
The short video snippet of GNR dog being shown scent item, is from early May 2007
Any ideas what day? Could it be May 11th? Just guessing.
Sorry, cant help. No longer read long reports.
-
You don't seriously believe that, do you? They were trained search & rescue dogs. That's almost tantamount to saying they followed the trail of room service around blocks 4 & 5.
IIRC the GNR dog diligence statement says the K9 interest ceased when the tray of dirty plates etc was removed.
At that date there was Tapas room service IIRC exclusively for apartments 4g and 4i, not any other apartment.
There is a Tapas staff statement about this.
-
IIRC the GNR dog diligence statement says the K9 interest ceased when the tray of dirty plates etc was removed.
At that date there was Tapas room service IIRC exclusively for apartments 4g and 4i, not any other apartment.
There is a Tapas staff statement about this.
But the burning question is:-
Did the dogs lose interest because the scent detected was removed or because the food was removed? Oh, if only they could speak our language......
-
According to much of what we know, Madeleine was carried out of the apartment in windy conditions. In those circumstances it is almost impossible for tracker dogs to follow a trail since the scent will have dispersed.
-
According to much of what we know, Madeleine was carried out of the apartment in windy conditions. In those circumstances it is almost impossible for tracker dogs to follow a trail since the scent will have dispersed.
Quite right, John.
....... and as far as we know her feet never touched the ground either, so not much of a scent trail there ... if any.
-
Quite right, John.
....... and as far as we know her feet never touched the ground either, so not much of a scent trail there ... if any.
Actually nothing concrete is known how Madeleine was taken out of the apartment and WHEN.
It is merely speculation
-
Actually nothing concrete is known how Madeleine was taken out of the apartment and WHEN.
It is merely speculation
I agree with you there Stephen , but had her bare feet touched the ground, I would have expected some resilient scent for the dogs tp pick up on, wouldn't you?
-
I agree with you there Stephen , but had her bare feet touched the ground, I would have expected some resilient scent for the dogs tp pick up on, wouldn't you?
Unfortunately, we will probably never know one way or the other.
-
Unfortunately, we will probably never know one way or the other.
We dont, that's for sure.
Maybe SY will know. And they are the ones thta matter.
-
Quite right, John.
....... and as far as we know her feet never touched the ground either, so not much of a scent trail there ... if any.
Think of all the people who have been successfully found by tracking/trailing dogs .
Hundreds.
How many of them were barefoot?
Probably none.
-
Think of all the people who have been successfully found by tracking/trailing dogs .
Hundreds.
How many of them were barefoot?
Probably none.
And how many of them were small and carried, so that their feet were about a metre from the ground ?
-
And how many of them were small and carried, so that their feet were about a metre from the ground ?
IMO a human continously sheds clumps of dead skin cells, which are infused with various biological substances, and also infused with various bacteria.
IMO the combination of those 3 components has a chemical signature unique to each human, and dogs detect this.
IMO a human will deposit a trail of these particles, at a rate of hundreds per second, into the environment along their every route, and IMO this happens even if the human is carried.
At least we know that definitely no shoes were being worn.
"she asked the parents whether Madeleine's shoes were there, to which they replied that they were"
(statement of MW employee AT)